SF 



REPORT 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS 



MARCH 29, 1921 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1921 




Class. 
Book 



-E^ 



Xl^ 



^z\ 



/? 



REPORT 






FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS 



MARCH 29, 1921 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1021 






FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 



Huston Thompson, Cliairman. 
Nelson B. Gaskill. 
John Garland Pollaho. 
Victor Murdock. 
John F. Nugent. 

J. P. YoDER, Secretary. 



L1B«AHY OF CONGRESS 

AUQftatl21 



CONTENTS. 

^ 

Page. 

Acknowledgment jO 

Lettei' of Bubmitfal 11 

Summary 15 

Chapter I. — Origin and Scope of Report. 

Sec. 1. Origin of inquiry 25 

Senate resolution 140 25 

Feedingstufis covered 25 

Period covered 25 

Sources of information 25 

Lack of authoritative information 26 

Chapter II. — The Development of Animal-Feeu.s I.ndustry. 

Sec. 1 . Historical 28 

Introductory 28 

Early commerce in feeds 28 

Necessity for regulation 29 

2. Distribution of animal feeds 31 

Introductory 31 

Use of brokers 32 

Use of jobbers 32 

Retail feed dealers 32 

Value of the various distributors 32 

3. The guaranteed chemical analysis 32 

Chapter III. — Production op Pri.ncipal Feeds. 

Sec. 1. The important commercial feeds 34 

Introductory 34 

Classification 34 

Ilays and straws 34 

Whole cereal grains 34 

By-product feeds 35 

2. Cereal mill by-products , 35 

By-products of wheat milUqg 35 

Bran ^. -C'. .': .*;.::::..:.-:•..•.. 36 

Middlings 36 

Red dog 36 

Wheat mixed feed 36 

Screenings 36 

Chemical composition of wheat-flour by-prodncts 36 

Production t.-.-..:f: .' .' 37 

By-products of rye milling .;•.•. 37 

By-products of barley milling 38 

By-products of buckwheat milling 38 

By-products of corn milling 39 

Hominy feed 39 

Corn bran and corn feed meal 40 

Corn-oil cake 40 

Other corn-mill feeds 40 

Production 40 

By-products of oat-nieal mills 41 

Production 41 

By-products of rice milling 42 

Rice hulls 42 

Rice bran 42 

Rice polish 43 

Pearling cone meal 43 

Production 43 

3 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Sec. 3. Starch and glucose by-producte 43 

Process of manufacture 43 

Corn gluten meal 44 

Corn gluten feed 44 

Corn-oil cake or com germ cake, and corn-oil meal or corn genu 

meal 44 

Production 45 

4. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by-products. 45 

Processes of manufacture 45 

Characteristics of brewery and distillery feeds 46 

Production 46 

5. Oil-mill by-products 47 

Cottonseed by-products 48 

Process of manufacture and description of by-products 48 

Cottonseed hulls 48 

Cottonseed cake 48 

Cottonseed meal 49 

Decline in protein content of cottonseed meal 50 

Feeding value of cottonseed meal 51 

Cold-pressed cottonseed cake 52 

Production 52 

Flaxseed l)y-products 53 

Process of manufacture 53 

Properties of linseed meal 53 

Production 54 

Flax-plant by-product 54 

Peanut-oil by-products 54 

Process of manufacture 55 

Peanut cake and meal 55 

Peanut hulls or shells 55 

Whole pressed peanuts 56 

Coconut cake or meal 56 

Production 56 

Soy-bean cake and meal 57 

Miscellaneous oil-mill by-products 57 

Palm kernel oil meal 57 

Sesame cake , 57 

6. Sugar by-products 58 

Dried beet pulp 58 

QuaUties of dried beet pulp 58 

Production 58 

Beet molasses 58 

Cane blackstrap molasses 59 

Production 59 

7. Animal and fish by-products GO 

Packing-house by-products 60 

Tankage. . . .". 61 

Dried blood 61 

Raw bone meal 62 

Production 62 

Fish scrap and fish meal 63 

Production 63 

8. Miscellaneous straight feeds 64 

.Vlfalfa meal 64 

Production 65 

Velvet-bean meal 65 

Dried buttermilk 66 

Semisolid buttermilk 66 

Palme niidds and palmo meal 66 

9. Proprietary or ready-mixed feeds 67 

Introductory 67 

Dairy feeds 67 

Stock feeds 68 

Horse and mule feeds 68 

Hog feeds .- 68 

Poultry feeds 68 



CONTENTS. O 

Sec. 9. Proprietary or ready-mixed feeds — Continued. Page. 

Calf meals 68 

Condimental stock remedies or tonics 68 

Methods of figuring costs of mixed feeds 68 

Factors considered in purchasing mixed feeds 69 

Sectional demand for mixed feeds 69 

CiiArTER IV. — The Low-Grade Feeds. 

Sec. 1. Introductory 70 

Feedingstuffs commonly classed as low grade 70 

2. Roughages not commercially important 71 

Miscellaneous 71 

Sorghum bagasse 71 

Flax-plant by-product 71 

Ground peanut hulls 72 

Flax feed or flax screenings 72 

Ground corncobs 73 

3. Grain screenings 73 

Sources of screenings 74 

Separation of screenings 74 

Principal uses of screenings 75 

Viability of weed seeds 75 

Harmful weed seeds in screenings 76 

Illegal use of screenings 76 

Opinions of brokers as to the value of screenings 77 

4. Elevator dust 77 

5. Clipped-oat bv-product 78 

6. Rice hulls. . . ." 78 

7. Peat 79 

8. Cottonseed hulls 80 

9. Oat feed and oat hulls 81 

Introductory 81 

Oat hulls 82 

Oat feed 83 

Feed value of oat feed 83 

Illegal use of oat hulls and oat feed 87 

10. Controversy over use of oat feed 87 

Criticisms of oat feed 87 

Defense of oat feed 88 

11. The problem of low-grade feeds 89 

Relation of prices to feed values 90 

Use of low-grade materials as adulterants 91 

Ad-idsability of farmers buying roughages 91 

Use of low-grade materials in mixed feeds 91 

12. Proposals for settlement of the low-grade feed problem 92 

Report of referee on feed adulteration, Association of Official 

Agricultural Chemists, 1019 96 

13. Conclusions 100 

Chapter V. — Wholesale Price.s. 

Sec. 1. Introductory 102 

Character of statistics and method of treatment 102 

Period covered by the statistics 103 

Straight feeds 1 04 

Mixed feeds 104 

Food Administration Regulations 104 

2. Comparison of prices of straight feeds with one another and with farm 

products and all commodities 105 

3. Comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with prices of straight 

feeds, farm products, and all commodities 108 

4. Prices of corn and oats 110 

Prices of corn Ill 

Prices of oats 1 12 



CONTKNTS. 



Sec. 5. Prices of flour-mill liy-proclucts 112 

Prices of wheat bran and standard middlings, Minneapolis market. IH 

Period prior to Government control 114 

Period of Government control 114 

Period following withdrawal of Government control 116 

Prices of wheat-mixed feeds, Hour middlings, and red dog, 

Minneapolis 116 

6. Prices of hominy feed 117 

7. Prices of reground oat hulls 118 

8. Prices of rice bran and rice polish 119 

9. Prices of starch and glucose by-products 1 20 

Prices of corn gluten feed 120 

Prices of corn oil meal 122 

10. Prices of cottonseed by-productB 122 

Prices of cottonseed meal 122 

Prices of cotkuiseed hulls 124 

11. Prices of linseed meal 124 

12. Prices of dried beet pulp 12G 

1.3. Prices of cane blackstrap molasses 127 

14. Prices of digester tankage 128 

15. Prices of alfalfa meal 128 

Ifi. Prices of ready-mixed feeds 129 

17. Prices of dairy feeds 131 

IS. Prices of stock feeds 133 

19. Prices of horse and mule feeds 134 

20. Prices of hog feeds 135 

21. Prices of calf meal 136 

22. Prices of poultry feeds 136 

23. Price decline last six months of 1020 139 

Decline in prices of straight feeds 139 

Decline in prices of ready-mixed feeds 140 

Chaptek VI. — Costs, Profits, Investment, and Return on Investment 
OF Feed Manufacturers, 1913-1919. 

Sec. 1 . Introductory 142 

Scope and companies covered 142 

2. Definitions and adjustments 142 

Net sales 142 

Cost of sales — Inventories 142 

Depreciation 143 

Intercompany profits 143 

Elimination of reserves 143 

General and administrative expenses 143 

Selling expense 143 

Net operating profit 143 

Investment 143 

Rate of return on investment 144 

3. Unit costs of producing and selling ready-mixed feeds 144 

4. Investment, profits, and rat(> of return on investment 148 

5. Comparative results of tjuakcr Oats C'o. with other companies 150 

Chai'TEu VII. — Comi'Ktitivk ('()Nr)rnoNs in the Animai.-Fkkhs Industry. 

Sec. 1 . ( 'ompetition between factory and home-mixed feeds 152 

Farmers independent of mixed feeds 152 

Reasons tor this independence 152 

Reasons for using ready-mixed feeds 154 

Reasons for homo mixing 155 

2. Feeders' methods of purchasing feeds 155 

1 ntroductory 155 

Direct purchases 155 

Cooperative buying 156 

The retail dealers 156 

3. Competition in the animal-feeds industry 157 



CONTENTS. 7 

Page. 

Sec. 4. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association 158 

Organization, membership, and purposes 158 

Attitude toward price agreements 158 

Propcsed price-fixing plan 158 

By-product manufacturers and their opponents 159 

The St. Louis open-formula resolution 159 

5. Other feed manufacturers' associations 160 

Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association 160 

The Pilot WTieel Manufacturers' Association 160 

United Feed Manufacturers of the United States 160 

6. Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants 161 

7. Quasi control of by-products 161 

Corn gluten feed 162 

Uniformity of prices 162 

Dried beet pulp 164 

Cane blacl<strap molasses 167 

8. Trade practices 168 

Long-time contracts 168 

Guaranty against price decline 169 

Overages 171 

Premiums given vnth mixed feeds 172 

9. Other practices 172 

10. Summary 172 

Chapter VIII. — The Regulation of the Feed Industry. 

Sec. 1. State and Federal laws 174 

Purpose of feed laws 174 

Feed laws generally uniform in essential provisions 174 

Prohibition of certain ingredients 175 

Variations of State feed laws 175 

Application of Federal Food and Drugs Act to feeds 176 

2. Administration of feed laws 176 

Federal inspection of feeds 176 

Cooperation of State and Federal inspectors 177 

The Association of Feed Control Officials 177 

3. Results of feed-law enforcement 177 

Introductory 177 

Results of regulation in certain States 178 

Pennsylvania 178 

South Carolina 178 

Texas 179 

Michigan 179 

Indiana 179 

General character of f eedingstuffs 180 

Straight and mixed feeds compared 181 

Variations as to guaranteed ingredients 181 

Effect of feed laws 181 

4. Legislative activities of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. 182 

Introductory 182 

Kind of legislation favored by the association 182 

Kind of legislation opposed by the association 182 

LIST OF TABLES. 

Table 1 . Comparison of sales of mixed feeds with by-product feeds, in the 

State of Indiana, by years, 1914-1919, inclusive 31 

2. Estimated production of wheat feeds, by crop years, 1913-14 to 

1919-20, inclusive 37 

3. Production of oat feed by 11 principal oatmeal millers, by years, 

1913-1919, inclusive 41 

4. Estimated production of rice bran and rice poUsh, by years, 1913- 

1919, inclusive 43 

5. Production of corn gluten feed and corn oil cake and meal, by 10 

principal manufacturers, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive 45 

6. Estimated production of lirewers' dried grains and malt sprouts, by 

fiscal years ended June 30, 1913-1920, inclusive 47 



8 CONTKNTS. 

Page. 
Table 7. Produrtion of yeast dried grains bv the iiriiiripal manufacturer, by 

years, 1913-1920, inclusive '. ". 47 

8. Average results of analyses of cottonseed nioal made at the Massa- 

chusetts Experiment Station, 1897-1919 50 

9. Estimated production of cottonseed cake and meal, together with 

exports and estimated domestic consumption; also estimated pro- 
duction of cottonseed hulls, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive !S2 

10. Estimated production of linseed cake and meal, by crop years, 1913- 

14 to 1919-20, inclusive ." 54 

11. Estimated production and domestic consumption of coconut cake 

and meal, by years, 191&-1920, inclusive 50 

12. Supply of cane blackstrap molasses, in gallons, by years, 1908-1920, 

inclusive fiO 

13. Estimated production of tankage and dried blood, by years, 1913- 

1919, inclusive G2 

14. Productionof fish scrap and fish meal, by years, 1!)13-1919, inclusive. 63 

15. Results of chemical analyses of oat feed by various chemists 83 

16. Average chemical composition and digestibility of oat hulls as com- 

pared with timothy hay 89 

17. Typical changes in the formula of a well-known dairy feed, 1913- 

1915, 1919-20 ; 95 

18. Average prices of 10 selected straight feeds, in tons and relative 

prices, together with relative prices of all commodities and farm 
products, by years 1913-1919, and for the first half of 1920 106 

19. Average prices of 12 brands of commercial mixed feeds, in tons and 

relative prices, together with relative prices of 10 straight feeds, 
all commodities and farm products, byvears, 1913-1919, and for 
the first half of 1920 ". ." 109 

20. Average prices per bushel of cash corn and cash oats of contract grade 

on the Chicago Board of Trade, by months, January, 1913, to June, 

1920, inclusive '. Ill 

21. Average prices per ton of mill feeds, sacked, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by 

years, 1913-1919, inclusive, and for the first half of 1920 ...". 113 

22. Comparison of the prices per ton of wheat bran with the prices of 

other wheat feeds, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive, and for the first 

half of 1920 ".." 117 

23. Average prices per ton of reground oat hulls, Boston market, by 

months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 118 

24. Average prices per ton of corn gluten feed and com oil meal, in bulk, 

Cliicago basis, by months, January, 1913, to May, 1920, inclusive. . 121 

25. Jobbers' average selling prices per ton of cottonseed meal, f. o. b. 

mills, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 123 

26. Average prices per ton of linseed-oil meal, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by 

months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 125 

27. Average prices of dried-beet i)ulp {)er ton, Syracuse freight-rate 

basis, by months, 1913-1919, inclusive 126 

28. Average net prices per gallon for contract cane blackstrap molasses, 

in bulk, f. o. b. storage plants. New York, by months, January, 
1914, to June, 1920, inclusive 127 

29. Prices of seven important straight feeds per ton, in carload lots, by 

weeks, June 26 to December 31, 1920, inclusive 140 

30. Unit costs per ton of ])roilucing and selling ready-mixed feeds, for 

groups of representative manufacturers, liy years, 1913-1919, in- 
clusive 144 

31. Investment and profit of groups of ready-mixed feed manufacturer.-!, 

by years, 191.3-1 919, inclu.sive 1 19 

32. Relati\e increases in the unit costs per ton of producing and selling 

ready-mixed feeds, for nine companies, and for the Quaker Oats 

Co., by years, 1915-1919, inclusive 151 

33. Percent age proihn I inn of corn gluten feed by the 10 princijjal produc- 

ing corapaui<'s, l'.ii:'> I'.ir.), iiirlii-ive 162 

34. Quantity of dricd-hrct pulp liaiullcd by the Larrowe Milling ('o., by 

seasons, 1913-14 to 191S-I9, inclusive, and for part of the season 
1919-20 165 

35. Summary of results of the inspection of feedingstul'fs liy the 

Indiana feed-i'ontrol ollicials, in specified years, 1907-1918 180 



CONTENTS. 9 

DIAGRAM. 

Page. 
1. Index numbers (1913 base) of wholesale prices of straight feeds, commercial 
mixed feeds, farm products, and all commodities, by months, January, 
1913, to June, 1920 facing. . 110 

APPENDIXES. 

1. Explanation of chemical terms 1S4 

2. Definitions of feedingstuffs 185 

APPENDIX TABLES. 

I. Index numbers of wholesale prices of groups of 10 straight feeds, 12 com- 

mercial mixed feeds, farm products, and all commodities, by months, 
January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 191 

2. Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f . o. b. Minneapolis, by months, Janu- 

ary, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 192 

3. Average prices per ton of white hominy feed in bulk, f. o. b mill, Indian- 

apolis, and for New York City and Boston freight-rate points, by months, 
January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 194 

4. Average prices per ton of rice bran and rice polish, f . o. b. mills, by months, 

January, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive 195 

5. Average prices per ton of merchantable cottonseed hulls, f. o. b. mills, by 

months, February, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive 195 

6. Average prices of No. 1 alfalfa meal, carload lots, f. o. b. Colorado and Kan- 

sas mills, and average of quoted prices for Kansas City rate points, by 
months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 196 

7. Average prices per ton of three dairy feeds, f. o. b. Boston rate points, by 

months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 197 

8. Average prices per ton of eight dairy feeds, f. o. 1). factory, by months, Jan- 

uary, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive 197 

9. Average prices per ton of six brands of stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, 

to June, 1920, inclusive 199 

10. Average prices of six brands of horse and mule feeds, f. o. b. factory, by 

months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 200 

II. Average prices per ton of four brands of hog feeds, f. o. b. factory, at central 

western points, by months, January, 1910, to June, 1920, inclusive 201 

12. Average prices per ton of three lirandsof calf meal, f. o. b. factory, at cen- 

tral western points, by months, January, 191(i, to June, 1920, inclusive.. 202 

13. Average prices per ton of four brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 

1913, to June, 1920, inclusive 203 

14. Average prices per ton of fi\e brands of scratch feed, f. o. b. factory, at 

specified points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive 204 

15. Average prices per ton of two brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. Boston and 

St. Louis, respectively, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclu- 
sive ". 205 

IG. Average prices per ton of three brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. factory, at 
nortnern Illinois points, by months, January, 1917, to June, 1920, inclu- 
sive 206 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT, 



The Commission desires to make acknowledgment especially of 
the services of Mr. Byron Phelps Parry, who had immediate charge 
of the inquiry, and of Mr. John H. Dynes. Valuable assistance was 
also rendered by Messrs. William W. Bays, Earl S. Haines, F. L. Hawes, 
William L. Mayo, George L. Townsan, and Walter M. Twombly. 

The Commission also desires to acknowledge the valuable coopera- 
tion of the Department of Agriculture, and especially the assistance 
of Messrs. J. K. Haywood and George L. Bidwell, of the Bureau of 
Chemistry, with respect to questions of animal nutrition and State 
and Federal regulation of commercial feeds. 
10 



LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 



' Federal Trade Commission, 

Washington, March 29, 1921. 
To the President of the Senate of the United States. 

Sir: There is transmitted herewith in response to Senate resolu- 
tion 140, July 31, 1919, a report on the manufacture and sale of com- 
mercial feeds. 

Commerce in animal feeds has grown enormously in recent years. 
This has been due in part to the greater knowledge of feed values 
and of the varied requirements of live stock. Many of the feeding- 
stuffs now widely used are bj'-products which were formerly wasted. 

Farmers and feeders may purchase their feed requirements in the 
form of ready-mixed feeds or they may buy the separate commodi- 
ties and do their own mixing. Tlie Federal and State Departments 
of Agriculture, tlie agricultural colleges, their staffs and other au- 
thorities render valuable assistance to farmers by advice on feeding 
problems, especially with reference to feed values and mixing their 
own rations. 

An investigation of the animal-feeds industry to be complete in- 
volves a study of practically^ every industry which uses in its manu- 
facturing processes vegetable material and some which use animal 
material. The by-products of all these industries supply a large 
number of different kinds of feedingstuffs. In addition to these 
feeds there are numerous others which are not the result of manufac- 
turing processes. It follows, therefore, that to make a thoroughly 
comprehensive investigation of animal feeds would involve a study 
of the manufacturing processes and of results in a large number of 
industries which produce as by-products materials suitable for feeds. 
Some indication of the ramifications of the feedingstuffs industry 
may be a^^preciated from the following general classification of feed- 
ingstuffs : 

1. The hays and straws. 2. The whole cereal grains. 3. Cereal 
mill by-products. 4. Starch and glucose by-products. 5. Brewery 
and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by-products. 6. 
Oil-mill by-products. 7. Sugar by-products. 8. Animal and fish 
by-products. 9. Miscellaneous feecls. 10. Commercial mixed feeds 
or proi)rietary feeds. 11. Condimental stock remedies or tonics. 

The American Feed Manufacturers' Association has listed over 
3,000 manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds, and the president 
of this association stated that this is very likely less than half of 
the total number. As a result of the foregoing facts it will be ap- 
preciated that anything like a complete survey of the feedingstuffs 
industry would involve an enormous expenditure of time and money. 
Under these circumstances the inquiry was confined to a study of rep- 
resentative feeds wliich enter into commerce and covers the period 
from 1913 to 1920, inclusive. 

11 



12 tlOMMKRCIAL, FEliUS. 

There is a great lack of authoritative data in regard to many 
phases of the industry and there are numerous (luestions confronting 
this business which are highly controversial. This is particularly the 
case with reference to the feed value of certain products commonly 
known as roughages or low-grade feeds. It is contended by some 
agricultural authorities and a few feed manufacturers that the use 
of certain of tliese low-grade feedingstuffs should be restricted, since, 
it is alleged, these feedingstuffs are roughages of which farmers pro- 
duce, or should produce, an abundance. It is also frequently alleged 
that mixed feeds containing one or more of such low-grade in- 
gredients are sold at prices out of line with their feed value. A num- 
ber of plans have been suggested to check the use of these commodi- 
ties, the most common one being the proposal to require the state- 
ment on tags and labels of the percentage of each ingredient used. 
However, important objections have been offered against the adop- 
tion of such a requirement. 

The study of the prices of feeds is attended with considerable 
difficulty. In particular the comparison of the prices of commercial 
mixed feeds with one another or with the prices of the sti-aight 
feeds from which tliey are made is difficult. This will readily ap- 
pear when the great number of ingredients which enter into many 
brands of mixed feeds are considered, and also the very frequent 
changes in formulas of man}', if not most, of these feeds. Hence 
no such precision is to be looked for in conclusions derived from a 
study of prices of these feeds as is possible in the study of prices of 
fairl}' homogeneous commodities. 

Prices of all kinds of feeds, both the so-called straight feeds and 
the ready-mixed feeds, in common with the prices of practically all 
other commodities, increased greatly during the war period and 
for more than a year and a half following the armistice. Most feeds 
reached their highest prices in May or June, 1920. There were 
naturally considerable differences in the movement of prices of 
different feeds, due to their great variety and the different sources 
from which they are derived, there being at times a plentiful supply 
of some feeds, accompanied by scarcity of others. Demand, too, 
naturally fluctuates, but the price of every feed depends in some 
measure, greater or less, on the prices of other feeds, on account of 
the relative ease witli which one feed can be substituted for another 
within fairly wide limits. 

One of the most important influences affecting prices during the 
war and much of the time since tlie armistice has been the shortage 
of freight cars, which has not only delayed shipments of finished 
products but often held up receipts of raw materials. At times this 
shortage has been acute and has caused decreased production. This 
condition, of course, has not been peculiar to the feed business. 

The wholesale prices of 10 important straight feeds and 12 com- 
mercial mixed feeds, which as a whole may be considered repre- 
sentative, respectively, of the.se two clnsscs, were compared with the 
comi)osite wluilosale jirices of a gi'oup of ^52 farm jiroducts and of all 
conuiioditios. as registered by index nuniliei's compiled l)y the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics of the Depaiiineiit of Tiubor. Tlu^se index num- 
bers give the prices of these grou])s of commodities by months and 
years relative to the average price of the year 1913 taken as a base. 



LETTER OF SUBMITTAL. 13 

Composite index numbers were also computed for the group of 10 
representative straight feeds and the group of 12 commercial mixed 
feeds. 

A comparison of these different series of index numbers shows 
that the price of all commodities in 1919 was represented by 212 
as compared with the base price of 100, or the average price of the 
year 1913. The other index numbers for the year 1919 were as 
follows: Farm products, 234; straight feeds, 236; ready-mixed feeds, 
220. There was a very close correspondence in the relative increase 
in prices of mixed fpeds and farm products, and also a rather close 
correspondence for straight feeds. The relative advance in prices 
from 1913 to 1919 in the two classes of feeds and also in farm prod- 
ucts was considerably higher than in all commodities. 

The prices of feeds as well as of all commodities continued to 
advance during the first half of 1920, but the second half of the 
year was marked by a very great decline in the prices of all feeds, 
both straight and ready mixed. The decline between June and 
December was as much as 57 per cent for some of the straight feeds. 
Different brands of mixed feeds declined in price from 20 per cent to 
more than 50 per cent. 

So far as general conclusions can be drawn from the study of the 
statistics of feed jirices the figures do not indicate a dispropor- 
tionate rise in these prices as compared with farm products in 
general. 

A study of the costs and profits of a representative group of nine 
mixed-feed manufacturers during 1915-1919 shows that during the 
period costs of materials about doubled, while with few exceptions 
all other items of manufacturing costs and expenses increased in 
about the same proportion. Since the average cost of raw materials 
for the period 1915-1919, inclusive, was about 83 per cent of the 
commercial cost of sales and about 80 per cent of the selling price, 
this wovdd indicate that by far the largest factor causing the high 
prices of ready-mixed feeds in 1919 was the great increase in the 
cost of raw materials. 

The net operating profit of these mixed-feed manufacturers was 
sufficient to net a fairly high rate of return on the investment in each 
year, while in 1917 and 1919 the rate of return was considerably 
larger, due probably in part to the fact that in these two years the 
net operating profit included some jnofit realized from an increase 
in value of raw materials during their period of conversion into 
mixed feeds. The average rate of return for the period 1915-1919 
was 18.77 per cent. The percentages represent the profits on the total 
investment employed in the business, which includes borrowed 
capital. The rates of return would be greater on the capital stock 
and surplus, which is the net investment of these companies. 

On the whole, competition in this industry is very active. It is 
true that there were indications that prices had been discussed by 
members of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association at or ini- 
mediately following certain meetings of the executive committee. In 
1919 also an attempt was made by certain members of this association 
to organize a bureau, which seems to have had price fixing as an 
object, but this organization was never completed. Although a care- 
ful examination was made of the correspondence files of various as- 



14 rO.MJlKlUlAL FKEILS. 

sociations in the feedinpstuffs industrj^ and of a number of important 
feed manufacturers, no indications were found of any concerted 
action to advance prices. Altiiough the discussions of prices above 
referred to maj' have tended to advance prices, no evidence was 
found to establish this. On tlie whole, as already indicated, the 
evidence obtained in the inquiry indicates a very sharp competition 
in the manufacture and sale of feedingstuffs. 

The distribution of throe important feed commodities, corn gluten 
feed, cane blackstrap molasses, and dried beet pulp, is in each case 
in the hands of a few concerns. This does not appear, however, 
to exclude competition in these commodities, nor does there appear 
to be any collusion or combination between the manufacturers in any 
one of the throe groups. 

A number of manufacturers grant overages, i. e., a commission 
to old dealers on feeds sold to new dealers in the former's territory. 
It is possible that this may be a price discrimination, and the Com- 
mission has taken steps to determine whether it is in violation of 
section 2 of the Clayton Act or section 5 of the Federal Trade Com- 
mission Act. 

The use of alternate or different brand names for the same feed 
may be unfair unless the use of such alternate brands is fully under- 
stood by the dealer and the consumer. In any case it leads to an 
undue multiplication of brands, and it is questionable whether it is 
desirable from an economic standpoint. 

While the Eastern Federation of Retail Feed Merchants is opposed 
to direct selling to consumers by manufacturers, such opposition, 
according to a careful examination of this association's records, is in 
the nature of the " educational argument " and not by boycott or 
threats of boycott. 

Animal feeds are subject to regulation by practically all States 
and by the Federal Government. This regulation was foimd to be 
necessary because fraudulent practices such as adulteration and mis- 
branding were at one time quite common. The enactment and en- 
forcement of feed laws by the various States, however, has un- 
doubtedly resulted in great improvement so far as these practices 
are concerned. 

In most States feeds must be so labeled as to show the guaranteed 
chemical analysis and the names of each ingredient. The use of 
harmful or doloteiious materials is generally prohilnted. 

The results of feed law enforcement, as reported by the different 
States, indicate that the great bulk of the feeds which enter into 
commerce have been found to be substantially equivalent to the 
guaranty under which they have been sold. A comparison made 
from published sources by the Conunission of the extent to which 
the straight and ready mixed feeds varied from their guaranteed 
chemical analysis showed no consistent differences in the average per- 
centage of deficiencies and overages as between the two classes. 
Respectfully, 

Huston Thojipson, Chairman. 
Nelson B. Gaskill. 
John Gari^\nd Pollard. 
Victor Murdoch. 
John F, Nugent. 



SUMMARY. 



The inquiry into the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds 
for animals was undertaken pursuant to Senate resolution 140, 
Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, which reads as follows: 

Resolved, That the Federal Trade Commission he, and it is hereby, instructed 
to make an investigation of the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds for 
animals ; such investigation to include the gathering of statistics as to the 
supply of the various commodities which are used for animal feeds, together 
with the fluctuation in the prices of these commodities, the extent to which 
these commodities are converted into concentrated food by manufacturers ; 
what combinations or understandings, if any, exist between the feed manu- 
facturers and wholesale feed dealers and retail feed dealers ; and what fraud, 
If any, is practiced by dealers, in the way of misbranding or using inferior 
substitutes in mixed feeds. 

Resolved further, That the Secretary of Agriculture be, and he is hereby, 
directed to cooperate with the Federal Trade Commission in this investigation. 

Development of the industry. — Commerce in animal feeds has 
grown enormously in recent years. This has been due in part to the 
greater knowledge of feed values and of the varied requirements of 
live stock. Many of the feedingstuffs now widely used are by-prod- 
ucts which were formerly wasted. Molasses, corn gluten feed, and 
flour-mill by-products, to name but a few, are some of the by- 
products which were at one time burned, run into streams, or buried 
for want of a better means of disposing of them. 

The scientific feeding of animals began to receive serious con- 
sideration in the United States during the period 1870 to 1880, and 
since then has steadily grown in importance. State agricultural 
colleges have devoted more and more care to feeding questions. 
Many State and private experimental farms conduct tests and ex- 
periments with various feedingstuffs. Dairy farming and the rais- 
ing of all kinds of live stock more and more demand scientific man- 
agement in feeding, as well as in other matters, if the maximum re- 
turn is to be realized. Although rapid progress has been made in 
recent years, nevertheless, most authorities agree that much is yet 
to be learned. 

The Federal and State Departments of Agriculture, the agricul- 
tural colleges and other authorities render valuable assistance to 
farmers by advice on feeding problems, especially with reference to 
feed values and mixing their own rations. The extent to which 
farmers use ready-mixed feeds can not be stated, since this is de- 
pendent upon many factors. However, the use of mixed feeds has 
grown tremendously in recent years and appears likely to continue. 
That ready-mixed feeds have a place is now undisputed. They serve 
a beneficial purpose and to many owners of animals are almost a 
necessity. Their increased use has been due largely to the demand 
for balanced rations; the increased use of by-products; the shortage 
of farm labor and desire of fanners for labor-saving devices; the 
growth of the dairy industry on small farms near centers of popula- 

15 



16 COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 

tion and the increase in raising of poultry by dwellers in cities; and 
finally to the extensive advertising campaigns of the manufacturers 
of mixed feeds. 

Classification of feedingstuffs. — An investigation of the ani- 
mal feeds industry, to be complete, involves a study of practically 
every industry which uses in its manufacturing processes vegetable 
material and some which use animal material. The by-products of 
all these industries supply a large number of different kinds of 
feedingstuffs. In addition to these feeds there are numerous others 
which are not the result of manufacturing processes. It follows, 
therefore, that a thoroughly comprehensive investigation of animal 
feeds would involve a study of the manufacturing processes and of 
results in a large number of industries which produce as by-prod- 
ucts materials suitable for feed. Some indication of the ramifica- 
tions of the feedingstuffs industry may be appreciated from the fol- 
lowing general classification of feedingstuffs: 

I. The hays and straws. 

2'. The whole cereal grains. 

3. Cereal mill by-products. 

4. Starch and glucose by-products. 

5. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by- 
products. 

6. Oil-mill by-products. 

7. Sugar by-products. 

8. Animal and fish by-products. 

9. Miscellaneous feeds. 

10. Commercial mixed feeds or proprietary feeds. 

II. Condimental stock I'emedies or tonics. 

The American Feed Manufacturers' Association has listed over 
3,000 manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds and the president of 
this association has stated that this is very likely less than 
half of the total number. As a result of the foregoing facts it will 
be appreciated that anything like a complete survey of the feeding- 
stuffs industry would involve an enormous expenditure of time and 
money. Under these circumstances the inq^uiry was confined to a 
study of the representative feedingstuffs which enter into commerce 
and covers the period from 1913 to 1920, inclusive. 

Production of FEEniNosTUFFS. — In discussing the production and 
supply of animal feeds the numerous feedingstuffs which do not enter 
into commerce must, of course, be considered. Pasturage and grazing 
lands are very important factoi's in feeding animals and the condi- 
tion of su<h lands affects commerce in feeds very markedly. It was 
noted that in the fall of 19'JO pasturage throughout the country was 
far better than usual and several important representatives of the 
feed trade stated that it had enabled farmers to carry their stock into 
the winter without purchasing as much feed as usual. An additional 
factor was the low price of corn, causing many farmers to feed their 
corn rather than sell it. 

Next to pasturage in importance are the home-grown feeds, such 
as the cereal grains, the hays, straws, and other fodders, as well as 
ensilage. By far the greater part of the production of wheat, rye, 
and rice is handled commercially. In the case of the hays and straws, 



SUMMARY. 17 

while there is considerable commerce in them they are largely con- 
smned where grown. This is also true of corn, oats, and barley. 

The above factors affect the extent to which farmers purchase 
feeds. While the total value of pasturage and the home-grown feeds 
consumed exceeds that of the feeds sold, the latter form an important 
factor in the commerce of the country and their total value is enor- 
mous, exceeding a billion dollars amiually. 

Of the commercial feedingstuffs — that is, the feeds which enter 
into commei'ce — the hays, straws, and whole grains, exceed, both in 
quantity and in value, the total of all the other kinds of commercial 
feedingstuffs, including mixed feeds. It is not feasible to deter- 
mine the exact production of these various groups. 

Commerce in feedingstuffs varies greatly between the different sec- 
tions of the country not only in quantity but in the kinds of feeds 
purchased. The prairie States buy large quantities of the high pro- 
tein feeds and relatively smaller quantities of the ro.ughages, while 
in the Eastern States it is necessary for many farmers to buy not 
only the high protein feeds but much of their roughage. This situa- 
tion is responsible for the fact that the best market for mixed feeds 
is in the Eastern States. It should be borne in mind, however, that 
farmers and feeders of to-day do not as a rule depend entirely upon 
home-grown feeds. It is realized that variety in a ration is im- 
portant, and for this reason many fanners buy concentrates to sup- 
plement their home-grown feedingstuffs, while, as previously stated, 
others buy practically all their feed requirements, either ready-mixed 
or unmixed. 

The nimiber of feedingstuffs is so large, and they are produced 
by so many widely scattered concerns that it was not to be expected 
that entirely satisfactory production statistics could be secured. 
However, the production of the more important feeds was deter- 
mined and the figures are presented in the report. Since many of 
these feedingstuffs are by-products, their production is not dependent, 
except to a very small degree, upon the demand for them, but rather 
upon the demand for the main or primary product. Similarly the 
price of most of these by-product feeds depends to a considerable 
extent upon the demand and price for the primary products. 

Duriiig a part of the period covered by the report the regulations 
of the Imited States Food Administration affected the production of 
many feedingstuffs as well as the prices at which numerous feeds 
were sold. The regidation requiring flour millers to obtain a higher 
percentage of flour than normally, reduced considerably the pro- 
duction of wheat mill feeds. An increase in the production of oat 
hulls resulted from the regulations requiring the iise of wheat sub- 
stitutes. 

The work of agricultural scientists and others in experimenting 
with various products has tended to increase the supply of animal 
feeds. Thus, in the manufacture of tin plate considerable quantities 
of wheat middlings are used to absorb the palm oil through which 
the sheets of metal are passed during the manufacturing process. 
After these middlings have served this purpose they are passed over 
a magnetic field to remove all particles of metal, and the middlings 
are then sold for feed, and it is alleged that the palm oil which has 
been absorbed increases the feeding value of the middlings. 
42976°— 21 2 



18 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

Numerous other factors influence the production of certain feed- 
ingstuifs. The Volstead Act affected the production of brewery and 
distillery by-products. In 1917 the estimated production of brewers' 
dried grains was 450,000 tons. In 1918 the estimated quantity pro- 
duced was 377.000 tons, and in 1919 the estimated production was 
but 208,000 tons. A more marked decline occurred in 1920 when the 
estimated production was only 69,000 tons. A similar decline occurred 
in the production of malt sprouts. 

The use of beet molasses in.stead of cereals in the manufacture of 
yeast has resulted in a decrease in the pi'oduction of dried yeast 
grains. In 1918 the production of the largest yeast manufac- 
turer in the United States was over 25,000 tons, and in 1920 was 
estimated to be about 12,000 tons. It is probable that in the future 
the production of this by-product will be j^racticallj' negligible. 

The imports of cane blackstrap molasses have increased steadily 
from year to jear. In 1908 about 16,700,000 gallons of molasses 
(not above 40°) were imiDorted from Cuba, the chief source of 
supply. In each succeeding year an increased amount was imported 
except in 1919, and it is estimated that the quantity imported from 
Cuba during the first eleven months of 1920 was 150,000,000 gallons. 

Practically the entire quantity of cane blackstrap molasses im- 
ported into and produced in the United States is used in the manu- 
facture of alcohol or as a feed for animals. The division of the 
supply between these two uses differs greatly at times, depending on 
various factors such as the relative price of molasses and other raw 
materials for alcohol manufacture, particularly corn. 

Several other important feedingstuffs may also be used for pur- 
poses other than feeds. Cottonseed meal, tankage, and fish scrap 
are frequently used for fertilizer, although in recent years such use 
has decreased. It is therefore difficult to determine exactly the ex- 
tent to which these commodities are used as animal feeds. However, 
it is possible to give estimates of the quantities so used which are 
satisfactory for all practical purposes. 

A number of feedingstuffs are rarely used by farmers as ingredi- 
ents in home-mixed rations. Practically the entire quantity of such 
commodities used as feeds therefore entei'S into mixed feeds. Among 
this group are flax plant by-product and clipped oat by-product. 
Other commodities are used in large quantities both as part of home- 
mixed rations and as ingredients in mixed feeds. The oil-mill by- 
products, corn gluten feed and dried beet pulp, are examples of this 
class. Other feedingstuffs, such as wheat bran, while widely used 
as ingi-edients in ready-mixed feeds, are more extensively used by 
farmers in mixing their own rations. 

The quantities of the various feeding.stuffs which are used by 
mixed-feed manufacturers could not be determined, even with a fair 
degree of accuracy, without the expenditure of time and money 
entirely out of proportion to the value of any results which might 
have been secured. 

Prices of feedingstuffs. — The study of the prices of feeds is 
attended with considerable difficulty. In particular the comparison 
of the prices of commercial mixed feeds with one another, or with 
the prices of the straight feeds from which they are made, is difficult. 
This will readily appear when the great number of ingredients which 



SUMMARY. 19 

enter into many brands of mixed feeds are considered, and also the 
very frequent changes in formulas of many, if not most, of these 
feeds. Hence no such precision is to be looked for in conclusions 
derived from a study of prices of these feeds as is possible in the 
study of prices of fairly homogeneous commodities. 

Prices of all kinds of feeds, both straight and ready-mixed, in 
common with the prices of practically all other commodities, in- 
creased greatly during the war period and for more than a year and 
a half following the armistice. Most feeds reached their highest 
prices in May or June, 1920. There were naturally considerable 
differences in the movement of prices of different feeds, due to their 
great variety and the different sources from which tliey are derived, 
there being at times a plentiful supply of some feeds and a scarcity 
of others. Demand, too, naturally fluctuates, but the price of every 
feed depends in some measure on the prices of other feeds, on account 
of the relative ease with which one feed can generally be substituted 
for another. 

One of the most important influences affecting prices during the 
war, and mucli of the time since the armistice, has been the shortage 
of freight cars, which has not only delayed shipments of finished 
products, but often held up receipts of raw materials. At times this 
shortage has been acute, and has caused decreased production. This 
condition, of course, has not been peculiar to the feed business. 

The wholesale prices of 10 important straight feeds and 12 com- 
mercial mixed feeds, Avhich may be considered repi'esentative of these 
two classes, were comi^ared with the composite wholesale prices of 
a group of 32 farm j^roducts and with a group of " all commodities," 
as registered by index ninnbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics of the Department of Labor. These index numbers give 
the prices of tliese groups of commodities liy months and years rela- 
tive to the average price of the year 1913 taken as a base. Composite 
index numbers were also computed for the group of 10 representa- 
tive straight feeds and the group of 12 commercial mixed feeds. 

A comparison of these different series of index numbers shows 
that the price of all commodities in 1919 was represented by 212 as 
compared with the base price of 100, or the average price of the year 
1913. The other index numbers for the year 1919 were as follows: 
Farm products, 234; straight feeds, 236; ready-mixed feeds, 220. 
There was a very close correspondence in the relative prices of the 
mixed-feeds group, the farm-products group, and also a close cor- 
respondence in most of the years between tlie latter and the straight- 
feeds group. The relative advance in prices from 1913 to 1919 in the 
two classes of feeds and also in farm products was considerably higher 
than the advance in all commodities. 

The prices of feeds as well as of all commodities continued to ad- 
vance during the first half of 1920, but the second half of the year 
was marked by a very great decline in the prices of all feeds, both 
straiglit and ready mixed. The decline between June and Decem- 
ber was as much as .57 per cent for some of tlie straight feeds. Dif- 
ferent brands of mixed feeds declined in price from 20 per cent to 
more than 50 per cent. 

So far as general conclusions can be drawn from the study of the 
statistics of feed prices the figures do not indicate a disproportionate 
rise in these prices as compared with farm products in general. 



20 commercial feeds. 

Costs, profits, and kktukn on invkstment of reprerkntative 
MixEU-FEEi) MANUFACTURERS. — A stucly of tlip costs iiiid profits of a 
representative group of nine mixed-feed manufacturers during 1915- 
101!) shows tiiat during the period costs of materials about tioubled, 
Avliile with few exceptions all other items of manufacturing costs 
and expenses increased in about the same proportion. Since the 
average cost of raw materials for the period 1915-1919, inclusive, 
was about 83 per cent of the commercial cost of sales, and about 80 
per cent of the selling price, this would indicate that bj' far the 
largest factor causing the high prices of ready-mixed feeds in 1919 
was the great increase in the cost of raw materials. 

The net operating profit of these mixed-feed manufacturers was 
sufficient to yield a fairly high rate of return on the investment in 
each year, while in 1917 and 1919 the rate of return was considerably 
larger, due probably in part to the fact that in these two years the 
net operating profit included some profit realized from an increase 
in value of raw materials during their period of conversion into mixed 
feeds. The average rate of return for the period 1915-1919 was 18.77 
per cent. The percentages represent the profits on the total invest- 
ment emploj'ed in the business, which includes borrowed capital. The 
rates of return would be greater on the capital stock and surplus, 
which is the net investment of the companies. 

CoMPETiTi\T5 CONDITIONS. — On the whole, competition in this indus- 
try is very active. This is natural in an industry which includes 
so many different products and such a large number of widely 
scattered manufacturers. The various straight feeds not only com- 
pete with one another to a greater or less extent but also with the 
ready-mixed feeds, and both these feeds must compete with the 
home-grown feedingstuffs. This competition tends to keep the prices 
of ready-mixed feeds and straight feeds in line with one another 
on the basis of their feed utility. The possibility of home mixing 
and the wide variety of commodities which may be substituted for 
one another in any mixed feed tends in no small degree to prevent 
unreasonable prices and probably also to prevent attempts on the 
part of producers of feedingslutfs to organize and combine to obtain 
price control. 

It is true that prices were discussed by members of the American 
Feed Manufacturers' Association rt or immediately following certain 
meetings of the executive committee. In 1919 an attempt was made 
by certain members of this association to organize a bureau which 
seems to have had price fixing as an object, but this organization was 
never completed. Although a careful examination was made of the 
correspondence files of various associations in the feediugstuffs in- 
dustry, and of a number of important feed manufacturers, no indica- 
tion was found c' any concerted action to advance prices. While the 
discussions of prices above referred to may have tended to advance 
prices, no evidence Avas found to establish this. On the whole, as 
already stated, the evidence obtained in the inquiry indicates a very 
sharp competition in the manufacture and sale of feedingstuffs. 

The distribution of three important feed commodities, corn gluten 
feed, cane blackstrap molasses, and dried beet pulp, is in each case in 
the hands of a few concerns. This does not appear, however, to ex- 
clude competition in these commodities, nor does there appear to be 



SUMMARY. 21 

any collusion or combination between the manufacturers in any one 
of the three groups. 

Trade practices. — A number of manufacturers grant overages, 
i. e., a commission to old dealers on feeds sold to new dealers in the 
former's territory. It is possible that this may be a price discrimi- 
nation, and the Commission has taken steps to determine whether it 
is in violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act or section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act. 

The use of alternate or different brand names for the same feed 
may be unfair unless the use of such alternate brands is fully under- 
stood by the dealer and the consumer. In any case it leads to an 
undue multiplication of brands and it is questionable whether it is 
desirable from an economic standpoint. 

Many feed manufacturers sell their goods guaranteed against price 
decline, although a majority of them believe the practice should be 
stopped. Another trade practice which most manufacturers con- 
demn and yet many indulge in, is that of long-time contracts. Both 
of these practices are due to competition. In an effort to do away 
with them members of the American Feed Manufacturers Associa- 
tion passed resolutions to the effect that the practices should be dis- 
continued. However, these resolutions did not have the desired 
result. 

Distribution of feeds. — Animal feeds reach the consumer through 
a system of distribution similar to that of other food products. 
Practically every manufacturer makes use of the retail feed dealer 
and in some sections of the country farmers' cooperative organiza- 
tions engage in this business. Most manufacturers also are willing 
to make direct sales provided the purchaser is financially responsible. 
In such cases the manufacturers frequently allow a commission to the 
local retail dealer, although he may have performed no service. 
While the Eastern Federation of Eetail Feed Merchants is opposed 
to direct sales to consumers by manufacturers, a careful examina- 
tion of this association's records did not indicate that it resorted, 
either directly or indirectly, to boycott or threats of boycott as a 
means of preventing direct selling. 

Low-grade feed problem. — There is a great lack of authoritative 
data in regard to many phases of the industry and there are numer- 
ous questions which are highly controversial. This is particularly 
the case with reference to the feed value of certain products com- 
monly known as roughages or low-grade feeds. It is contended by 
some agricultural authorities and a few feed manufacturers that 
the use of certain of these low-grade feedingstuffs should be re- 
stricted, since, it is alleged, these feedingstuffs are roughages of 
which farmers produce, or should produce, an abundance. It should 
be pointed out, however, that in some .sections of the country fanners 
do not produce sufficient roughages to meet their requirements. It 
is also frequently alleged that mixed feeds containing one or more 
of such low-grade ingredients are sold at prices out of line with their 
feed value. A number of plans have been suggested to restrict the 
use of these commodities, the most common one being the proposal 
to require the statement on tags and labels of the percentage of each 
ingredient used. However, important objections have been offered 
against the adoption of such a requirement, nor is it certain that 
it would achieve the result desired. It should be pointed out in con- 



22 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

nection with the foregoing that much of the agitation over the use 
of some of thcst" low-grade fei'diiigstuffs is based on selfish jjrounds 
and is due largely to competition between manufacturers ot mixed 
feeds. 

Before this controversy over the low-grade feeds can be definitely 
and satisfactorily settled a series of exhaustive te.sts should be under- 
taken with these low-grade feeds and probably combinations of 
these low-grade feeds with certain high-gi-ade feeds. Such tests 
should be made liy a disinterested body, preferably the United States 
Department of Agriculture. 

Guaranteed criEjncAL analysis. — At the present time most States 
require that feedinggtuifs be sold under a guaranteed chemical anal- 
ysis, showing the minimum amount of crude protein, the minimum 
amount of ci'ude fat, the maximum amount of crude liber, and in 
some States the total carbohydrates contained in the feed. In addi- 
tion to the chemical analysis most States require that feeds offered 
for sale shall have attached thereto tags or labels showing the name 
of each ingredient in the feed. 

The chemical analysis has come to be widely recognized as an 
index or measure of the value of a feedingstuff. However, such use 
of the guaranteed chemical analysis is held to be unwise by most 
scientists and manufacturers. For example, it has been determined 
that there are several kinds of protein and that these proteins differ 
both in digestibility and in other qualities. Consequently merely 
to state that a feed contains given percentages of protein, fat, and 
fiber does not, it is maintained, tell the complete story. However, 
in spite of the insufficiency of the chemical analysis as a standard, 
it is the one most frequently used, and apparently must suflSce untU 
scientists have developed a better one. 

Eegulation. — With the growth of commerce in feedingstuffs vari- 
ous forms of fraud and deceit began to be practiced by manufac- 
turers of and dealers in these commodities. These practices were 
responsible for the enactment of laws regulating commerce in feeds. 
The first feed law was enacted by Connecticut in 1895, and shortly 
thereafter other States also enacted statutes on this subject, until 
at the present time practically all States have regulated commerce 
in feedingstuffs. The few States which do not have specific feed 
laws are those in which commerce in feeds is small. The statutes 
of most States are quite uniform in their essential provisions, al- 
though there is such a difference in some requirements, particularly 
registration of brands, as to cause manufacturers considerable diffi- 
culty in meeting the requirements. A few State laws differ markedly 
from the majority in tliat they require, under certain conditions, the 
statement of the percentage of each ingredient in a feed. In addi- 
tion to the various State regidations the Federal Food and Drugs Act 
of 1900 is applicable to feeds for animals. 

The State and P>deral authorities in charge of enforcing feed 
laws have formed an association known as the Association of Feed 
Control Officials of the United States, which has served to bring 
about more uniformity in matters pertaining to feed regulations. 
These officials adopted the policy of publicity in respect to fraudulent 
practices. For example, as early as 1898 Massachusetts issued a bul- 
letin regarding the inspection of feedingstuffs in that State. This 



SUMMARY. 23 

bulletin contained advice to farmers regarding feeding matters, and 
cautioned them against the use of certain feeds. 

The results of feed-law enforcement, as reported by the different 
States, indicate that the great bulk of the feeds which enter into 
commerce have been found to be substantially equivalent to the guar- 
anties under which they have been sold. A comparison made by the 
Commission from published sources of the extent to which the 
straight and ready-mixed feeds varied from their guaranteed chemi- 
cal analyses showed no consistent differences in the average percent- 
age of deficiencies and overages as between the two classes. 

It is undoubtedly a fact that the enactment and enforcement of 
feed laws has resulted in great improvement so far as fraudulent 
practices are concerned. There are being found to-day comparatively 
few cases where feedingstuffs have been adulterated with substances 
considered deleterious or as having practically no nutritive value. 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Chapter I 
ORIGm AND SCOPE OF REPORT. 

Section 1. Origin of inquiry. 

This investigation was undertaken pursuant to a resolution of 
the United States Senate which reads as follows: 

Senate Resolution 140 

Resolved, That the Feaeral Trade Commission be, and it is hereby, instructed 
to make an investigation of the manufacture and sale of commeriial feeds for animals; 
such investigation to include the gathering of statistics as to the supply of the various 
commodities which are used for animal feeds, together with the fluctuation in the 
prices of these commodities, the extent to which these commodities are converted 
into concentrated food by manufacturers; what combinations or understandings, if any, 
exist between the feed manufacturers and wholesale feed dealers and retail feed 
dealers; and what fraud, if any, is practiced by dealers in the way of misbranding 
or using inferior substitutes in mixed feeds. 

Resolved further , That the Secretary of Agriculture be, and he is hereby, directed 
to cooperate with the Federal Trade Commission in Jhis investigation. 

Feedingstuffs covered. — The inquiry dealt chiefly with those 
commodities which enter into commerce either as ingredients in 
commercial or proprietary mixed feeds or those which are purchased 
for use in home-mixed rations. Inasmuch as the use of commercial 
mixed feeds is increasing yearly and there is considerable discussion 
regarding the feeding value of some of the ingredients used in such 
mixtures, especial attention was given to these feeds. The investiga- 
tion did not include the whole gi-ains and the hays and straws, except 
as they are used as ingredients in mixed feeds. 

Period covered. — On account of the disturbed conditions created 
by the war it was deemed advisable to study and compare condi- 
tions during recent years with those prevailing in 1913 and 1914. 
This inquiry, therefore, as a whole reviews conditions existing in 
the animal feeds industry during the period 1913 to 1920, inclusive. 

Sources of information. — The Commission through its field 
agents covered the principal producing and consuming centers of 
animal feeds in the United States with the exception of the Pacific 
coast, wlfich was not included because of the expense and time it 
would have involved. Representatives of all factors interested in 
feedingstuffs were interviewed and data as to the manufacture and 
sale of commercial feeds for animals were collected. In order to 
ascertain the profits realized by mixed feed manufacturers the Com- 
mission secured data on the subject from a representative group of 
manufacturers of such feeds. 

1 Sub.sequent to the presentation of this report to the Senate in manuscript, a few minor changes in text 
and figures were made in the copy submitted to the printer. 



26 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

Production figures for most of the feedingstuffs and their ingredients 
which were covered by the investigation aid not exist and the Com- 
mission was in many instances forced to rely upon estimates and 
computations based upon average conversion percentages. In 
other cases questionnaires were used to secure production data. 
In several instances the quantities produced could not be ascer- 
tained with sufficient accuracy to justify presentation. 

Statistics of wholesale prices were secured from manufacturers 
and jobbers, and monthly averages of the figiu^es from these sources 
are presented in this report. Price figm-es from the trade press and 
other public sources were also compiled and were used for purposes of 
comparison. Average prices for a few feeds computed from these 
published figures have been used in the tables in this report where 
no satisfactory figm-es were secured from manufacturers or jobbers. 

An investigation of competitive conditions in the industry was 
made to determine whether or not combinations or understandings 
existed. The files of many feed manufactm'ers, dealers, and associa- 
tions were examined, and the information developed therefrom 
was supplemented by interviews. 

Many State and J'ederal officials charged with the enforcement of 
laws regulating the manufacture and sale of feeds were also inter- 
viewed. From these interviews and from published reports of these 
officials certain facts m regard to adulteration and misbranding have 
been ascertained and are here presented. 

Lack of authoritative information. — The animal feeds business 
is of considerable size and importance. Aside from hays, straws, and 
the whole grains, however, feeds are largely by-products of a wide 
variety of industries, such as cereal milling, cornstarch and glucose 
factories, cottonseed, linseed, and other oil mills, sugar factories, etc. 
(Chap. Ill, sees. 2-8.) Each one of the thousands of little country 
flour and grist mills is a producer of feedstuS's, as are also each of the 
hundreds of cottonseed-oil mills, as well as a large number of small 

Slants in various other industries scattered over the length and 
readth of the United States. It is estimated that the value of 
feedingstufi's which enter uito commerce greatly exceeds a billion 
doUai's annually, which is probably conservative. R. W. Chapin, 
president of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association, nas 
stated that the association has listed the names of over 3,000 manirfac- 
turers of mi.xed feeds alone, and that tliis very likely is less than half 
the total number. While, therefore, it is impossible to measure the 
feedingstuffs industry in any exact terms, such as total volume of pro- 
duction, value of feedingstuffs produced, or the number of producers, 
it engages the activities of a very large number of manufacturers 
and is geographically probably one of the most widely distributed 
of all manufacturing industries. 

As has ah-eady been indicated, there exist only very meager statis- 
tical data concerning the feed industry. The extent oi the by-product 
character of the feed industry, its size, and its widespread geograph- 
ical distribution, explain in a considerable degree why statistics of 
some commodities could not bo secured without the expenditure of 
time and money far in excess of the value of the results which might 
have been secured. 

Furthermore, it is desired to point out that accurate information 
respecting several important phases of the business could not be se- 



OKIGIN AND SCOPE OF REPORT. 27 

cured because representatives of the trade did not have the records 
from which such information could be obtained. Thus it was not 

Eossible to obtain the costs and profits of retail feed dealers, chiefly 
ecause such dealers rarely kept their records of account covering a 
sufficient period; and, secondly, because such few accounts as were 
available could not be put upon a comparable basis. 

In the feedstuffs industry there are several very much disputed 
questions. While great progress has been made m the science of 
animal nutrition, authorities on the subject are not entirely in accord, 
and the numerous theories held by these scientists render it difficult 
to determine the truth. Furthermore, there is a deficiency of authori- 
tative data supporting a number of these theories, which increased 
the difficulty of arriving at accurate conclusions. For example, 
vv'hile a number of scientists hold that certain feedingstuffs should 
not be used because of their low feed value, they appear to be without 
sufficient authoritative data, such as feeding tests, to support their 
contentions. 



Chapter II. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANIMAL FEEDS INDUSTRY. 

Section 1. Historical. 

Introductory. — The scientific feeding of animals is of fairly recent 
origin. Prior to 1870 domestic animals in this country were fed in a 
ratner haphazard manner. The feedingstuffs used were those pro- 
duced by the owner of the stock, the only commerce in feeds being 
the comparatively small amount required by dwellers in cities and 
towns. 

The feedmgstuffs of 50 or 60 years ago were the forage crops and 
cereal grains. By-product feeds, i. e., the by-products of various 
milling and converting processes were not used for feeding m the 
early days, for the reason that little or nothing was known as to the 
utility of these products for this purpose. For the want of a better 
means of disposal they were frequently burned, run into streams, or 
buried. This is the early history of most of the by-products now 
commonly recognized as valuable for feeds. Flour mill by-products, 
molasses, corn gluten feed, to name but a few, were thus wasted. 
The ready-mixed feed of the present day, i. e., a feed produced by a 
manufacturer and containing two or more ingredients, did not of 
course exist at this early date. Such mixing or rations as there may 
have been was done by the individual farmer, who realized that 
stock produced to better advantage on some feeds than on others 
without knowing why this was true. There was nobody to explain 
the beneficial results that could be expected from discrimination in 
the use of the farmer's various home-grown products. Intensive 
feeding for high production of milk, fat, or work was practically 
unknown. 

The first step from the feeding of home-grown feeds, as hays, some 
roots, and whole grains, toward the use of converted products, was 
the grinding of the whole grains before feeding them. This, however, 
was not a commercial proposition, strictly spealdng, since the farmer 
carried his grains to the country gristmill to be ground. 

Early commerce in feeds. — It is not the purpose of this report 
to give the history of each feedingstuff. Indeed it \vould be difTicult 
to ascertain when many of the commodities now used as feeds were 
first utilized for this purpose. It may be stated with assurance, 
however, that it was not until after the early eighties that most of the 
present important by-product feeds began to be seriously considered 
as feed for animals. Even at that time many were still allowed to go 
to waste. The first commercial, or ready-mixed, feeds came into the 
market about this time. They were simple mixtures, such as corn 
and oat chops, and one oatmeal miller claimed to have been using 
oat hulls in a mixture. 

It was in the period from 1870 to 1880 that scientific feeding of 
animals in the United States may be said to have begun. It was 
28 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 29 

not until about 1S80, however, that the teaching of scientific feeding 
of animals was undertaken. About this time Dr. W. O. Atwatcr 
began teacliing this subject at the Connecticut Experiment Station 
at Middletown, Conn. In 1883 Dr. H. P. Armsby and Prof. W. A. 
Henry also beo;an teaching and demonstrating the science of feeding 
at the Univei-sity of Wisconsin.' This study of animal nutrition has 
undoubtedly accounted for much of the success in the introduction 
of many of the by-product feeds. 

Wheat bran was one of the by-products to be first considered as a 
feed. About 1883 - a Minneapolis miller became convinced that bran, 
which at that time was being run uito the river, should be utilized 
commercially as a feed. Experiments were made with cattle fed on 
bran and the results were so satisfactory that this miller published 
a report of the tests. Shortly thereafter a demand for this product 
developed which has steadily increased. Other by-products were 
gradually discovered to be of value as feeds for animals, but European 
nations have been quicker than this country to realize the feed value 
of some of the by-products. Linseed cake for use as animal feed 
has been exported for 30 years, and until the advent of the European 
war much oi this product produced in the United States was exported. 

A number of by-products of various industries were first used by 
farmers in the vicmity of the source of supply as a supplement to the 
home-grown ration. The farmers hauled away these by-products and 
were rarely if ever charged for them. A niimber of by-products, how- 
ever, required considerable missionary work on the part of the pro- 
ducers before they became widely accepted by the farmers and other 
feeders. , 

Necessity for reculatjon. — There being at first little or no 
commerce in feedingstuffs there was, of course, no necessity for regu- 
lation. As commerce in feeds increased, however, various forms of 
fraud and deceit began to be practiced. Feeds were quite often 
adulterated and misbranded, and these fraudulent practices were the 
direct cause of the enactment of laws regulating commerce in feeds. 
In 1895 Connecticut enacted the first feed law in this country. Shortly 
thereafter other States began to pass feed laws. 

The officials enforcing the State laws, and also the aOTicultural 
colleges teaching the scientific feeding of animals, early adopted the 
policy of publicity in respect to fraudulent practices. In 1898 
Massachusetts issued a bulletin regarding the inspection of feeding- 
stuffs in that State. This and other early pamphlets and bulletins 
contained advice to farmers and cautioned them against the use of 
certain feeds, both straight (single ingredient) and mixed (two or 
more ingredients). Feeds were classified as concentrates and rough- 
ages, much as they are to-day. 

The study of the science of animal nutrition steadily became of 
more importance. This was particularly true in sections thickly pop- 
ulated, where farms were small and intensively cultivated, because of 
the necessity of utilizing the farm products to the best advantage. 
State agricultural colleges devoted more and more care to feeding 
questions and more State legislatures enacted laws designed to 



1 Thp Feed Industry in the United States, G. A. Chapman. 

2 Bran had been nsed iTT some localii ies i)rior to this as a teed but so far as tho CoionussiQJi was able to 
ascertain it was not then widely regarded as a feed of value. 



30 COMMCTCTAT. FREnS. 

firotcct purchasers of feeds and also honest manufacturers. Dairy 
arminw and the raising of all kinds of live stock demanded scientific 
management in feeding, as well as in other matters if the maximum 
return was to he realized. 

In 1006 the Federal Food and Drugs Act was passed and a numher 
of States without legislation affecting feeds adopted the Federal 
act for the regulation of commerce in foods and also feeds. Nearly 
all States now have some legislation regulating commerce in feeding- 
stuffs, but there are some of these that have not undertaken exten- 
sive activities along these lines. As a whole, however, animal feeds 
are subject to constant and careful policing, with the result that 
fraudulent practices have been greatly lessened. The officials 
enforcing the State and Federal laws have formed an association for 
the purpose of cooperation in working out their common problems. 
The science of aiiimal nutrition absorbs the attention of many scien- 
tific men. Theories of feeding are developed frequently and rapid 
progress has been made along these lines in recent years. Numerous 
leeching theories have been discarded. Great as has been the advance 
in the scientific feeding of animals, most scientists of to-day agree 
that much is yet to be learned. The activities of agricultural 
scientists and feed-control officials have been of great service to the 
animal-feeds trade. Farmers receive valuable aid and advice from 
them and manufacturers are also assisted by the efforts of these scien- 
tists. 

Farmers and feeders of today do not as a rule depend entirely upon 
home-grown feeds. The importance of variety in a ration is realized. 
Many farmers buy the concentrates to supplement their home-grown 
feeds. Others buy practically all their feed requirements, either 
ready mixed or unmixed. This latter is particularly true of the 
Eastern and Northeastern States and of the tenitory in close prox- 
imity to the larger cities where farms are small. 

The use of mixed feeds has grown steadily and appears likely to 
continue. That these rations have a place is now unnisputed. They 
serve a beneficial purpose by utilizing many commodities valuable as 
feeds which would otlierwise be wasted or poorly utilized. To many 
owners of animals the ready-mixed feeds are almost a necessity. It 
is also true that mixed-feed manufacturers have done much to 
educate feeders and farmers in the proper care as well as the feeding 
of stock. 

As a part of the work of the agricultural scientists many of the 
State agricultural institutions maintain experimental farms where 
feeding tests and experiments are conducted. The results of these 
experiments are frequently made public. Some manufacturers also 
conduct private experimental farms. 

The growth of the mixed-feed industry has been due to several fac- 
tors: The increased use of by-products; the demand for balanced 
rations; the shortage of farm labor and desire of farmers for labor- 
saving methods; the extensive advertising and educational campaigns 
of the manufacturers of mixed feeds; the growth of the dairy industry 
on small farms near the large cities; and the increase in the raising of 
poultry by dwellers in the cities and towns. All of these factors 
have played a part in this int^rease. 

The actual growth of the mixed-feed industry is difficult to meas- 
ure. The Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station (Indiana) com- 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 



31 



pares the sales of this class of feed with those of by-product feeds in 
the State of Indiana. These figures are probably typical of the 
important middle western territory. There are States where the 
percentage of mixed feeds is much higher, and some of the prairie 
States use a much smaller percentage. 

Table 1. — Comparison of sales ofviixedjeeds with by-product Jeeds, in the Slate oj Indiana, 
by years, 1914-1919, inclusive. 



Year. 


Compounded manu- 
factured feeds.' 


Straight by-product 




Tons. 


Percent. 


Tons. 


Per cent. 


1914 


69,821 
78,646 
85,826 
lOS, 154 
145, 545 
201,486 


26 
29 
27 
29 
34 
40 


201,930 
191,693 
231,838 
263,062 
288,654 
299,608 


74 


1915 


71 


1916 




1917 


71 


1918 


66 


1919 


60 







1 Includes calf meals, poultry scratch feeds with and without grit, poultry mashes, chop feeds, and pro- 
prietary mixed feeds, including molasses, horse, dairy, and hog feeds. 

3 Includes such feeds as cottonseed meal, tankage, linseed oil meal, corn germ meal, hominy feed, mill 
by-products, bran, middlings, shorts, red dog, etc. 

It is undoubtedly true that the animal feeds industry is yet in its 
mfancy. Nevertheless it has already reached such proportions that 
it must be regarded as one of the important industries of the country. 
Many changes in the present feeding theories and practices may be 
expected. The movement of the population of the country to the 
cities is "bound to have its effect upon the feeding situation. It is 
highly probable that the primary result will be the further increase 
in the use of ready-mixed rations. The situation is one which calls 
for much additional information as to feed values. 

Section 2. Distribution of animal feeds. 

Introductory. — Feedingstuffs for animals reach the ultimate pur- 
chasers through a system of distribution common to other commodi- 
ties, particularly loodstuft's. Brokers, jobbers, commission men, 
wholesale and retail dealers, and other distributors, are frequently 
used as the connecting links between manufacturei's or producers of 
feeds and the purchasers. Then, too, as is common with many other 
commodities used by farmers, there are cooperative purchasing organ- 
izations through which farmers buy their feeds without the interme- 
diary services of any of the above-mentioned distributors or middle- 
men. The consumer may also, under certain circumstances, purchase 
his feeds direct from the manufacturer or producer, as will appear 
later. 

The number of manufacturers is so great that it is only natural to 
find considerable diversity in general sales policies and distributive 
methods. Certain trade practices are substantially imiform. Others 
differ widely, due to various reasons — some geographical, some de- 
pendent on iolierent characteristics of the material handled, and some 
growing out of differences of opinion as to the best way of developing 
a profitable business. 

The functions performed by the distributors of animal feeds are 
too well known to require discussion in tliis report. There are, how- 



32 COMMERCIAL l^EEDS. 

ever, a few points in connection with (ho distribution of animal feeds 

to wliich attention should he called. 

Use of brokers. — The producers or manufacturers of the by- 
product feeds usually sell their by-products through brokers. Thus, 
the flour mills of Minneapolis sell a large part of their wheat feeds 
through brokers. Cottonseed-oil crushers dispose of much of their 
cake, meal, and hulls, in a similar manner. It is largely because of 
the fact that the commodities are by-products that they are thus 
handled, the producers usually devoting most of their efforts to the 
sale of their primary products — in the foregoing cases flour and cot- 
tonseed oil. Then, too, the brokers are a never-failing outlet and 
furnish a channel of distribution which the producers of the by- 
products can apparently utilize more cheaply than to maintain their 
own distributing organizations. 

Mixed-feed manufacturers do not distribute their feeds through 
brokers to as great an extent as do the producers of the by-product 
feeds. Most mixed-feed manufacturers maintain rather extensive 
sales forces and many of the larger companies have branch offices 
in different sections of the country. 

Use of jobbers. — Feed manufacturers do not distribute their 
products through jobbers to any great extent except in the Southern 
States. In that section the feed jobbers, who are usually wholesale 
grocei-s, are used because of credit conditions. These jobbers pay 
cash for the feeds and in turn sell on credit to the local dealers. 

Retail feed dealers. — The bulk of the feeds bought by farmers 
and others are purchased from retail feed dealers. Attempts ap- 
parently have been made by some retail dealers and some associations 
of such dealers to place their business upon a cash basis, but without 
much success. It was stated by the secretary of the largest associa- 
tion of retail dealers that the establishment of a strictly cash feed 
business would be almost impossible. 

Value of the various distributors. — Manufacturers and pro- 
ducers of feeds were practically unanimous in asserting that all the 
various types of distributors were necessary to the efficient conduct 
of trade in feedingstuffs. Brokers and jobbei"s, so it is asserted, 
afford outlets for feeds at practically all times, and serve to broaden 
the market without adding unduly to the expense of distribution. 

During the car shortage and other transportation difficulties of 
the past few years brokers and jobbers, it is alleged, rendered an 
important service in that they were able to maintain the feed supply 
of the retail dealer, and hence the farmer. This was due to the ship- 
ments which these distributors were able to make either from goods 
in transit or in their warehouses at nearby points. 

The retail dealer is also alleged to be a necessity. Unless a supply 
of fecdiiigstufi's is constantly and immediately available to feeders 
their feecling program is bound to suffer. 

Section 3. The guaranteed chemical analysis. 

It is not the intention to give in this report a history of the devel- 
opment of the science of animal imtrition, nor to discuss the various 
theories and practices of animal feeding. The Commission is not 
equipped to give this information except in so far as it may be 
obtained by study of published material. Much of this is available 
to the public in numerous works on the subject. The information nee- 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY. 33 

essary to enable the reader to understand the chemical and scientific 
terms used in this report will be found in Appendix 1. 

At the present time mixed feeds are sold on a guaranteed chemical 
analysis.^ This guaranty consists of a statement of the minimum 
amount of crude protein, the mmimum amount of crude fat, the 
maximum amount of crude fiber, and in some States, the total car- 
bohydrates, contamed in the mixture.* Some of the straight un- 
mixed feedingstuffs, for example, cottonseed meal and linseed meal, 
corn gluten feed, etc., are also sold on a guaranteed chemical analysis, 
although there are a few of these feedingstuffs, such as screenings 
and the straight grains, which are not required to be guaranteed in 
this manner. 

Chemists usually determme the amounts of moisture and ash 
contained in samples of feeds analyzed, in addition to the content of 
protein, fat, fiber, and carbohydrates. 

The guaranteed chemical analysis as an index or measure of the 
value of a feed is disputed. Scientists have determined, for example, 
that there are several kinds of protein. The proteins differ both m 
digestibility and in other qualities. The same is true of fat and fiber. 
Consequently merely to state that a feed contains a given percentage 
of protein, fat, and fiber does not, it is maintamed, tell the complete 
story. However, in spite of the fact that the chemical analysis as a 
standard does not give all the information that is desirable, still it 
is of much value, serves a very useful purpose, and apparently must 
suffice until scientists have developed a better one. 

3 Except in a few States not having laws requiring such guaranty. 
* See Appendix 1. 



Chapter III. 
PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 

Section 1. The important commercial feeds. 

Introductory. — Scores, if not hundreds, of different kinds of 
feeds for live stock are used in the United States.' Many of these 
are fed almost entirely on the farms where they are produced or in 
the neighborhood, and enter little if at all into commerce. A large 
number of these feeds are of importance to the farmer, dairyman, 
and feeder. This report, however, does not deal with this class of 
feeds as such, but only with those which are commonly bought and 
sold — in other words, the commercial feeds. 

It is the purpose of this chapter to give a brief description of the 
principal commercial feeds, together with the statistics of their pro- 
duction so far as these have oeen secured. As already explained, 
however, no accurate statistics or even satisfactory estimates are 
available for several of the important feeds. Even less information 
is available concerning the extent to which the so-called straight 
feeds are used as ingredients in commercial mixed feeds. 

Classification. — All the commercial feeds, both roughages^ and 
concentrates,^ may be divided for convenience of discussion into 1 1 
main groups, as follows: 

1. The hays and straws. 

2. The whole cereal grains. 

3. Cereal mill by-products. 

4. Starch and glucose by-products. 

5. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar by- 
products. 

6. Oil-mill by-products. 

7. Sugar by-products. 

8. Animal and fish by-prod>icts. 

9. Miscellaneous straight feeds. 

10. Commercial mixed feeds or proprietary feeds. 

11. Condimental stock remedies or tonics. 

Hays and straws. — Hays and straws may be classed as rough- 
ages, much the greater part of the production of which is consumed 
on the farms. While tlie commerce in these commodities is large, it 
is not, however, of primary importance in the consideration of com- 
mercial feeds, and the Commission did not include them in this 
inqiiiry.^ 

Whole cereal grains. — Great quantities of the whole cereal 
grains, particularly com and oats, are sold for feeds. Much of this 
whole grain is used as feed for animals. Large quantities are also 
purchased by the manufacturers of mixed feeds. Part of this is 

1 WoU, F. W., Productive Feeding of Farm Animals, 2d ed., p. 163. 

' Roughages are the coarser feedin^stuffs, wiiicli are higher in liber and supply a lower percentage of 
digestible matter. (Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 10.) 

> Concentrates are feedingstnlTs of condensed nature, which are low in fiber, and hence furnish a large 
amount of digestible matter. (Henry ami Morrison, 17lh ed., p. 10.) 

* .\lfalfa meal, which is manuifactured from alfalfa hay, is an important feed which is given consideration 
later. 

34 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 35 

chopped or ground for use in mixed feeds, while part finds its way 
as whole grain into the mixtures known as scratch feeds, which are 
sold for poultry feeding. No complete statistics are available to 
show the quantities of the whole grains which are sold directly to 
feeders or to manufacturers of mixed feeds. 

By-product feeds. — It will be noted that OTOups three to eight, 
inclusive, in the above classification include only by-products of in- 
dustries which furnish food and drink for human consumption. 
Many of these by-products are sold directly to feeders for use in 
home mixing, but large c[uantities of all the by-product feeds are 
used as ingredients in commercial mixed feeds. Certain of these by- 
products are high in fiber and are usually classed as roughages or low- 
grade feeds. These feeds are considered in Chapter IV, and will 
therefore be only briefly mentioned in this chapter. Other by- 
product feeds are generally recognized as having high feeding value, 
and most of them are widely used both in home-mixed and in commer- 
cial-mixed. feeds. These feeds are described in this chapter. Brief 
descriptions of the processes of manufacture by which . they are 
derived are. given in order to furnish a clearer idea of their source 
and character. The general opinion of the feeding value of each of 
the most important feeds is stated, as is the chief purpose which 
each serves in the nutrition of live stock. The average content of 
crude protein, crude fat, and crude fiber is stated for each of the 
more important feeds, in order to give the reader a more definite idea 
of their qualities. 

In the description of the various by-product feeds, and of proc- 
esses of manufacture, in addition to information secured by the Com- 
mission's representatives from manufacturers and others, published 
sources have been freely used.^ 

Section 2. Cereal mill by-products. 

By-products of wheat milung." — This group is a large one and 
may be conveniently divided on the basis of the different kinds of 
grain. The by-products from the manufacture of wheat flour, gen- 

i The Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States has adopted deHnitious of a large number 
of the by-product feeds. This association is composed of feed-control officials of the several States and 
representatives of the Bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture. The adoption 
of deflnitious by the association, therefore, gives them an official character and they are generally recognized 
by feed-control officials and by the trade. In addition to these official deflnitions, the association has 
tentatively adopted definitions of other by-product feeds. The tentative deflnitions are considered by 
the association at its annual meetings and if found satisfactory are adopted as official definitions. Both 
the official and tentative deflnilions will be found in full in Appendix 2. 

8 Following is a brief description of the modern process of manufacturing wheat flour. The process of 
milliiie flour from rye, barley, and buckwheat is sufficiently simUar not to reciiiire description in coimection 
with the description of the by-products derived from the milling of those grains. 

By the use of a series of sieves, separators,scourcrs,and washers the foreign material is separated from the 
grain and the latter thoroughly cleaned. 

When wheat has been thoroughly dry cleaned by these processes,it is not generally considered necessary 
to wash it, but some millers prefer to wash all the wheat, afterwards subjecting it to a drying process. The 
grain is then tempered to make it easier to separate the outer part of the wheat kernel. This is accompUshod 
by any one of several methods which consist in softening the grain by heat and moisture. 

The grain is then subjected to a gradual process of reduction by passing between successive sets of rollers 
placed at decreasing distances apart, and the flour is separated from the offal by sifting. Each stage in 1 he 
roUing process is called a " break." When the partly crushed grain passes from the first roU or " break" it 
goes to the " scalper," where it is sifted by means of a series of screens covered with wire or bolting cloth. 
The resulting material then passes through successive processes of roUing and sifting, the nimiber dltlering 
in different miUs. 

The middlings obtained from the various rolls and sifters are mixed and constitute the part that is to be 
made into flour. Three important machines are used in this operation— the purifier, the smooth rolls or 
pulverizer, and the bolter. In the " purifier" the small particles of remaining bran are removed by the use 
of sieves and a current of air. The ''smooth rolls" pulverize the purified middlings, and in the ''bolter!' 
the resulting material is sifted tlirough many sieves of silk bolting cloth. ' The fine flour is then separated 
from the middlings and anj remaining bran. The coarser parts are passed repeatedly through the purifier 
and smooth roUs and are finally separated by the bolter. The germ is ordinarily removed by boltmg and 
purifying in the early stages of the refining process. Cf. Food Industries, by ViUte and VanderbUt, 2d ed. 
(1916), Chap. v. 



36 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



ernlly referred to as "offal," constitute from 25 per cent to 33 per 
cent of the weiojht of the entire gi'ain and arc among the most im- 
portant and widely used feeds for live stock.' 

The composition and qualities of these by-products will be better 
understood from the following brief description of the wheat grain. 

The wheat berry is covered by three different coatings of tough, thick-walled cells, 
which contain a considerable proportion of fiber * * *. Dirertly beneath the 
innermost seed-coat is a layer of cells, very rich in protein, called the aleurone layer; 
inside of this is the soft white pcjrtion (endosperm) or the berry, made up of cells largely 
filled with starch grains. These also contain protein suKstances, known under the 
name of gluten (gliadin and glutenin). Within the inner starchy portion of the lierry 
is found the germ containing the embryo of the wheat plant. * * * 

The aim of the miller is to ol)tain all the starch cells and gluten possible from the 
wheat, and to avoid the germ and the bran, including the aleurone layer, which 
would give an undesirable yellow tinge to the flour and lower its keeping quality.* 

Somewhat different terms are used in different parts of the country 
to designate these feeds, but those most commonly used are wheat 
bran, standard middlings or shorts, white or flour middlings, red dog, 
and wheat mixed feed. 

Bran consists of the coarse outer coatings of the wheat kernel. It 
is light and chaffy and carries a considerable amount of fiber. It is 

Erobably more widely used in feeding live stock than any other single 
y-product. Its chief use is as a feed for dairy cattle." 

Middlings consist of the finer bran particles and some low-grade 
flour and some of the germs. Standard middlings or shorts contain 
little flour, while white or flour middlings contain more flour and 
less bran and sweepings. Middlings are very largely used as a feed 
for hogs.'" 

Red dog is a low-grade dark flour wliich generally contains some 
of the wheat germs and is therefore rich in crude protein and fat.'" 
Wheat-mixed feed is the entire mill-run of the residues of the wheat 
kernel left after separating the commercial flour.'" 

Screenings. — In addition to these by-products of flour milling the 
cleaning oi" the wheat yields more or less screenings. This product 
consists of broken and imperfect wheat kernels, weed seeds, and other 
foreign materials.'" A comparatively smaU part of the screenings 
which enter into commerce is obtained from the cleaning preparatory 
to miUing. Much more is obtained from the cleaning and grading of 
the wheat at the elevators. The characteristics and feed value of 
screenings are discussed in some detail in Chapter IV, section 3. 

Chemical composition of wheat-flour by-products. — The av- 
erage protein, fat, and fiber content of the chief wheat-flour by-prod- 
ucts, as determined by Henry and Morrison (17th ed., p. 634) from a 
very large number of analyses, is shown in the following statement: 



B J -product. 



Bran 

Standard middlings (sliorts) 

Flour middlings 

Red-dog flour 

Wheat feed 



Crude 


Fat. 


Crude 


protein. 


fiber. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


16.0 


4.4 


9.5 


17.4 


4.9 


6.0 


17.8 


5.0 


4.7 


16.8 


4.1 


2.2 


16.8 


4.6 


7.6 



' Feeds and Feeding, by Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 157; Principles of Feeding Farm Animals, by 
SIcoter Bull, p. 194. 

« WoU, Productive Feeding of Farm .\nimals, pp. 179-180. See also Jordan, W. H., The Feeding of Ani- 
mals, pp. 243-244. 

» Henry and Morrison, 17th cd., pp. 156-157; Bull. p. 194. 

" Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., pp. l.')7-159; Bull., pp. 194-199. 



PEODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



37 



Production. — The United States Grain Corporation has published 
statistics of tlie total output of wheat-flour offal for the crop years 
1917-18, 1918-19, and 1919-20. Similar figures for earlier years 
are not available, but estimates have been made for the crop years 
1913-14 to 1916-17 on the basis of the total weight of wheat used 
in milling " by assuming that 30 per cent of the wheat is recovered 
as mill feed. The following table shows the total estimated produc- 
tion in tons of wheat-flour by-products for the crop years 1913-14 to 
1919-20: 

Table 2. — Estimated production oj wheat feeds, by crop years, 1913-14 to 1919-20, 
inclusive.^ 



Year. 


Tons. 


Year. 


Tons. 




4, 924, 000 
4, 785, 000 
6, 133, OOO 
4,672,000 


1917-18 


4,383,000 
4,300,000 
5,338,000 




191S-19 




1915-16. . 


1919-20 











' Figures for 1913-14 to 1915-17 are estimates on basis of wheat used as shown by the report of the 
Federal Trade Commission on Commercial Wheat Flour Milling, p. 95, by using 58 pounds per bushel 
to obtain total weight and assuming null feed equals 30 per cent of tlie total weight. Figures for 1917-18, 
1918-19, and 1919-20 are from the United States Grain Corporation figures published in supplement to 
Grain and Flour Statistics Durmg the War, Table 22, p. 22. 

Imports of bran and middlings entered for domestic consumption and exports of bran and middlings 
were, according to Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, as follows; 



Year. 


Imports. 


Exports. 


Year. 


Imports. 


Exports. 


1913-14. . 


Tons. 
60,751 
36,077 
41,625 
32, 717 


Tons. 

2,570 
11,426 
14,613 

7,428 


1917-18 


Tons. 
61,608 
20,796 
4-1, 597 


Tons. 
6,833 
6,213 
2,907 




1918-19 


1915-16 


1919-20 


1910-17 











E- 



The estimated output of mill feeds for the first four years ranged 
from 4,672,000 tons for 1916-17 to 5,133,000 tons in the year preceding. 
For 1917-18 the estimated production fell to 4,383,000 tons and for 
1918-19 to 4,300,000 tons. The 1919-20 production was 5,338,000 
tons or more than 1,000,000 tons greater than for 1918-19. 

The Food Administration secured reports durmg a part of the war 
eriod from most of the wheat-flour mills, showmg the quantities of 
ran, shorts, and middlmgs produced. The figures for the crop year 
1917-18 are as follows: Bran, 1,797,000 tons, or 41 per cent; shorts, 
1,183,410 tons, or 27 per cent; middlings, 569,790 tons, or 13 per cent, 
out of the total of 4,383,000 tons, as given above; the remaining 19 per 
cent being mixed feeds. '^ 

Similiar figures are not available for the other years, and it is 
doubtful whether these percentages applied to the totals for other 
years would give correct results, on account of the differences in 
milling practices during the war. 

By-products of rye milling. — Bran, shorts, and middlings are 
mentioned by the writers on animal feeds as the by-products of the 
manufacture of rye flour, The bran and middlings are usually 
combined as rye feed. The Association of Feed Control Officials 
recognizes only rye middlmgs or rye feed and rye red dog flour, the 

n Federal Trade Commission Report on Commercial Wheat Flour Milling, p. 9.5. 
u War Industries Board Price Bulletin No. 8, p. 5, and No. 9, p. 15. 



38 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

latter consisting of low-grade flour with some particles of bran and 
other offal, while the former consists of the products other than flour. 

The rye flour by-products are said to resemble closely the 
corresponding wheat flour by-products, but authorities differ with 
regard to their feeding value as compared with the latter.''' The 
average of 186 analyses of rye feed snows the content of protein, 
fat, and fiber, respectively, as 15.3 per cent, 3.2 per cent, and 4.7 per 
cent. These figures show a somewhat lower content of crude protein 
and fat and considerably lower fiber content than the corresponding 
figures for wheat flour by-products. 

Statistics of the total production of rye flour offal are not available, 
but the quantity is very small as compared with that of wheat flour 
offal. The census figures for 1914 show the total quantity of rye 

f round in that year as 12, 81 4,000 bushels as compared \vith 54.5,728,000 
ushels of wheat ground.'** While figures for this particular year may 
not be typical, they will answer for the purpose of a rough comparison. 
The corresponding figures for the census of 1919 are not yet available. 

By-products op barley milling. — Barley mills produce barley 
flour and pearl barley for human consumption. The latter is made 
by removing the outer and inner husk of the gram, after which it is 
ground to a round form and put through a polishing process.'^ 
Writers on the subject of animal feeds refer to the by-product from 
both these processes as "barley feed" or "barley meal. The Asso- 
ciation of Feed Control Officials, however, distinguishes in its official 
definitions between " barley feed " and " barley mixed feed," the form- 
er being the by-product from the manufacture of pearl barley, and 
the latter that from the milUng of barley flour. 

The barley by-products closely resemble wheat bran in composition 
and are said to have about the same feeding value.'" 

The averages of 13 samples of barl(\y feed (Henry and Morrison, 
17th ed.) give protein, 12.7 per cent; fat, 3.4 per cent; fiber, 7.8 per 
cent. 

Statistics of the quantity of barley by-products produced have not 
been secured. They are, however, quantitatively unimportant as 
compared with wheat feeds." 

By-products of buckwheat '* milling. — In the manufacture of 
buckwheat flour the by-products are hulls, and shorts or middlings. 
The black, woody hulls have little feedino; value, but the middlings 
are recognized as a valuable feed, which is used almost entiiely for 
dairy cows. Sometimes the hulls are mixed with the middlings and 
the product is sold as buckwheat feed, wliich is said to contain 
ordinarily from one-half to two-thirds of hulls.'" The average con- 
tent of protein, fat, and fiber, respectively, in buckwheat middlings 
(54 analyses) is 28.3 per cent, 7.4 per cent, and 4.8 per cent. Similar 

» Henry and Morrison, 17tli cd., p. 1G4; BuU.p. 203. 

» Census of Maiiutnctiirers. 1914, Vol. 11, Table 13, p. 401. 

" Vulte and Vanderbilt, Food Industries, p. 49. 

i« Henry and Morri,son, 17th ed., p. 164; W'oll, p. 1S3, Ofllcinl Definitions, Appendix 2. 

" The census statistics for 1914 give the quantity of barley milled as 20,2H.s,(iO{l bushels, wliilc, as stated 
above, the quantity of wheat iniUcd in 1914 was. '">4.i,72S,flOI) bushels. Tlu'Mnaiuity (■flvirley milled in that 
year was, however, considerably hirecr than that of rye (l-.^l ',""" bushrls>, :iii<l llic rye iroi) in rei'cnt 
years has averaged only about one-tnird that of barley. ( nc|i;irl menl (if A};ri<ulluio \e:ir Hook, 1919, 
pp. .'j42 and 549.) Presumably, therefore, the quantity of by-products from barley milling is normally 
considerably larger than the bV-products from rye milhiig. 

" Buckwheat is not a cereal botanically, but is usually classed as such for commercial purposes. (Bull. 
p. 205.) 

IB Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 171; Well, p. 184; Dairj-men's League News, Feb, 25, 1919, p. i. 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 39 

figures for good grade buckwheat feed (18 analyses) are 19.3 per cent, 
5.2 per cent, and 17.9 per cent. 

Buckwheat by-products are not of very great importance on account 
of the small production. The milling season lasts only about four 
months. The number of mills is not large and the largest mill in 
the country produced in 1919 less than 500 tons of buckwheat feed. 
The census of 1914 gives the quantity of buckwheat grain milled in 
that year as only 5,478,000 bushels, though the total crop of that 
year was nearly 17,000,000 bushels. In more recent years the 
buckwheat crop of the United States has averaged about 16,000,000 
bushels.^" 

By-products of corn milling. — The principal products of the 
modern roller processes of corn milling are corn meal, cracked corn, 
hominy, hominy grits, and brewers' grits. Corn oil is also produced 
from the germ. Corn flour, the finely divided material separated 
by bolting, may be regarded as a by-product of the gradual reduc- 
tion process.-' The by-products resulting from corn milling, which 
are used as stock feeds, are corn bran, corn feed meal, hominy feed, 
and corn oil cake. Corn bran corresponds approximately to the 
bran obtained in the milling of wheat m the modern flour mill, and 
corn feed meal is a cattle feed consisting usually of a mixture of 
bran and fine offal, mostly of a starchy nature, obtained as a by- 
product in the nondegerminating process of milling corn. The ground 
germ is often in part an ingredient of corn feed meal. 

The nature of the by-products of corn milling will be better imder- 
stood from a brief description -^ of the structure of the corn kernel, 
which isin some respects similar to that of wheat. 

There is first the outside husk, or skin, made up of two distinct 
layers. This is high in fiber, scarcely any being found in the other 

Eortions of the kernel. Next is a layer of cells rich in gluten. The 
ody of the kernel surrounding the germ or embryo consists of closely 
compacted starch cells, though some of this interior tissue on the 
sides of the kernel next to the walls is fUnty.^^ 

Hominy feed. — Hominy feed, which is also called hominy meal, 
hominy chops, and corn hearts, consists of the kiln-dried mixture of 
the braR, germ (with or without a partial extraction of the oil), and 
part of the starchy portion of the corn kernel obtained in the deger- 

" Census of ManufactureK, 1914, Vol. H, p. 401; Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1919, p. 554. 

21 Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 215, p. 5, 

»! Jordan, The Feeding of Farm Animals, pp. 252-253. 

23 There are t wo processesof roller millingknown as the degerminatingandthenondegerminatingprocesses. 
The following description of the degerminating process is taken from Bulletin No. 215 of the United States 
Department of Agricultureentitled "Composition of Com (Maize) Meal Manufactured by Different Proc- 
esses and the Influence of Composition on the Keeping Qualities," by A. L. Winton, W. C. Burnet, and 
J. H. Bornmann: 

"Corn is earned from the elevator or bin through a magnetic separator to remove nails, etc., then through 
a screen to remove large pieces of cobs or other foreign matter and over a fine screen to remove sand and grit. 
It is then aspirated with a strong air current to remove impurities of a light , fluffy nature. 

" The cleaned corn now goes through the tempering device and to the degerminator. In the latter ma- 
cliine the kernels are broken open, tlie germs are partly broken loose from the starchy portion of the 
grain, and the bran is partially removed. Thi.-^ broken" com is dried and allowed to l3ow through the 
hominy separator. In this machine the stock is led through a revolving sheet-iron cylinder, through the 
metal of which are niunerous narrow slots. Within this cylinder are beaters revolving in the opposite 
direction from the cylinder. This removes some bran and most of the rotten grains, which latter are shat- 
tered into very fine particles as they pass through the degerminators. 

" From this cylinder the stock passes through a sizing reel which removes all the material fine enough 
to pass a number seven screen (seven meshes to the linear inch). At the same time it is aspirated to 
remove dust and bran. The coarse portion from this machine, which is now quite well cleaned, is passed 
through the first, second, and third break rolls, being screened after each break, separating flour, meal, 
fine grits, coarse grits, and hominy. 

"As the products attain the desired degree of fineness they are aspirated thoroughly before bagging." 

The degerminating process yields the important by-products known as hominy feed and com oil cake 
or meal. The by-products from the nondegerminating process are corn bran and corn feed meal. 



40 



COMMERCIAL. FEEDS. 



minating process. It is a palatable feed, like corn in composition, 

but somewhat bulkier. It contains more fat than corn and is some- 
what lower in nitrogen-free extract and higher in fiber. It is higlily 
valued as a dairy feed and for fattening steers and is also used as a 
substitute for corn in the rations for the other farm animals.^* 

Corn bran and corn feed meal. — The difference between corn bran 
and corn feed meal can not be sharply defined. Pure corn bran is 
the outer coating or hull of the corn Kernel and does not possess high 
feeding value. When any considerable quantity of the germ and 
starchy part of the kernel is ground into the bran the product merges 
into wnat is termed corn feed meal. The feeding value of corn feed 
meal depends almost entirely on the grade of table meal produced. 

If 20 per cent of the corn ground goes into liy-product it mil show about 9 per cent 
protein, 5 per cent fat and 9 per cent crude liber. The percentage of protein remains 
almost stationary but the percentage of fat increases and that of fiber decreases as the 
volume of feed advances above 20 per cent. The commercial value of corn feed meal 
is, therefore, entirely dependent upon the character of the milling process followed.^ 

Corn oil calce. — This is a by-product not only of the corn mills but 
also of the starch and glucose factories and is taken up in the next 
section of this chapter. 

The average protein, fat, and fiber content of hominy feed, corn 
bran, and corn feed meal are given in the following statement from 
Henry and Morrison (17th ed.) : 



By-product. 



Crude 
protein. 



Hominy feed (high grade) 

Hominy feed (low grade) 

Corn bran 

Corn feed meal (com meal or chop) 



5,335 



Other corn-mill feeds. — In some parts of the country the entire 
corn kernel is ground in small mills into a fine meal and is used as a 
feed for cattle, horses, hogs, and poultry. However, much of the 
feed product is made from that part of the kernel left after the man- 
ufacture of cracked corn or table meal, and is correctly called corn 
feed meal.-" 

Corn and cob meal and ground corn cobs are discussed in Chapter 
IV, section 2. 

Production. — The Commission did not find it feasible to secure 
complete statistics of the production of by-products from corn milling, 
largely on account of the very large number of mills producing these 
by-products. Reliable estimates are also lacking. 

The hominy feed produced prior to November, 1916, was to a 
large extent the by-product of hominy grits manufactured for brewing 
purposes. About that time there developed an abnorml export demand 
lorcorn flour and corn grite for use as substitutes for wheat flour. Ex- 

Eorts of these products were unusually large in 1917, 1918, and 1919. 
•uring part of^ this time there was also a heavy domestic demand for 

•< Woll, p. 1K,5: Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 165. 

» Statement of K. S. Miller, quoted in PriceCurrent-Oraiu Reporter, Aug. 20, 1919, p. 40. 

« Uenry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 153. 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



41 



corn products as a substitute for wheat foods. This led to a greatly 
increased production of hominy feed. In the fall of 1920 the produc- 
tion of hominy feed was reported to be comparatively small on ac- 
count of the withdrawal of the domestic demand for brewers' grits 
and the great fallino; off in the demand for corn flour and corn meal 
as a substitute for wneat flour. 

Comparatively little corn bran comes on the market as such, since 
it is usually mixed with the other by-products." 

By-products of oatmeal mills. — The oat by-products are ob- 
tained chiefly from the manufacture of oatmeal and other breakfast 
foods. Besides the primary products of the oatmeal mills, viz, oat 

froats, or the kernels of the oat berry, which are ordinarily used as 
uman food, four oat by-products are recognized by the Association 
of Feed Control Officials. These are oat hulls, oat middlings, oat 
shorts, and clipped oat by-product. The first three are derived 
from the oatmeal mills, and the clipped oat by-product comes partly 
from the mills and partly from grain elevators. These by-products 
are described and their qualities discussed in Chapter IV, sections 5, 
9, and 10. 

Production. — The production of oat feed,^^ by years, 1913 to 1919, 
inclusive, as furnished by 11 of the pi'incipal oatmeal millers of the 
country, is shown in the following table: 



Table 3. 



-Production oj oat jeed by 11 principal oatmeal millers, 
inclusive. ' 



t years, 1913-1919, 



Year. 


Tons. 


Year. 


Tons. 


1913 


89,731 
95,783 
118,545 
117,047 


1917 




1914 


1918. 


262 294 


1915 




169,414 


1916 








1 1 n addition to the domestic production of oat feed, according to Foreign Commerce and Navigation of 
the United States, there were imported for domestic consumption the following quantities of oat hulls 
(presumably oat feed): 


Year. 


Tons. 


Year. 


Tons. 


1913-U 


28,763 
13,036 
25,545 
14,634 


1917-18 


15,433 


1914-15 


1918-19 


1915-16 


1919-20 




1916-17 











The abnormally large production of the war years 1917 and 1918 
is to be noted. This doubtless is accounted for by the very large 
production of oatmeal resulting from the demand, for substitutes 
for wheat foods, brought about by the Food Administration's con- 
servation program. 

Similar statistics for clipped oat by-product were not secui'ed, 
because this commodity comes largely from the grain elevators, and 
these are so numerous that it was not practicable to secure statistics 
from them. If the statements of the trade may be I'elied on, how- 
ever, the tonnage of clipped oat by-product exceeds that of oat feed 



" Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 155. 
38 Oat hulls, oat shorts, and oat middlings. 



42 ■ COMMERf'IAI. FKEDS. 

given above. Practically the entire production of clipped oat by- 
product is used by mixecl-feed manufacturers. 

By-products of rice milling. — The rice grain us it comes from 
the threshing machine, which separates the grain from the straw, 
is called rough rice. When damaged or suflTiciently low in price the 
whole rough rice is sometimes used for feeding stock. But the whole 

?Tain is probably not fed extensively anywhere, and its use as a stock 
eed seems to be limited to the poorer grades near the place of growth. 

The main product resulting from the processes of rice milhng ^° is 
the polished rice of commerce; the by-products are bran, polish, and 
hulls, and in a few mills the additional by-product called pearling 
cone meal. 

Rice livlh, as the name indicates, form the outer coating of the 
grain. The ciualities and uses of this by-product are discussed in 
Chapter IV, section 6. 

Rice hran is the brown co\'ering of the rice grain or the bran layer 
or pericarp beneath the hull, which is removed bv friction in the 
process of milling, [ts particles are smaller and of a more delicate 
texture than those of wheat bran. Commercial rice bran is a mixture 
of the by-products from different machines. It contains small 
broken particles of the rice grain, some small particles of hulls, and 
practically the entire germ. Careful modern milling should remove 
most of the hull particles from the bran. Rice bran contains a high 

Eercentage of fat and moisture, and therefore is likely to heat and 
ecome rancid and cake. It loses weight and does not keep well or 
bear shipment over long distances. The bran will keep oetter if 
mixed with an ingredient which absorbs the fat. Two methods are 
used successfully to prevent heating and caking. (See also Chap. 
IV, sec. 6.) One is to dry the bran so as to reduce its moisture to 
8 or 9 per cent. The other is to remove a part of the oil by the ex- 
peller or naphtha process. Some millers assert that drying is not 
needed unless the harvesting season has been wet, and that bran will 
keep indefinitely if properly treated and kept free from weevils. 

Authorities agree that rice bran is an excellent feed, either straight 
or mixed, for cattle, horses, or hogs. Pure rice bran is suitable for 
human food. 

M In the milling of this rough grain for the production of the commercial polished rice for human food 
certain by-products result which are used as feed for live stock. The first process in milling consists in 
cleaning the grain, removing foreign matter, the long beard, and stems, and Ught or blighted grains. The 
cleaned grain is then run between hulling stones in order to crack or split the hulls, as the outer chaffy 
coverings are called. The whole product then goes to the stone reel, which is a revolving octagonal frame- 
work covered with wire screens. The fine material which passes through this reel consists of broken hulls, 
germs, and true bran. Itis called stone-reel bran. The loose hulls are removed by suction. 

In the next process the "paddy" machine separates the remaining rough rice from the hulled grains. 
The unhnUed grains are again passed between hulling stones set closer together than the first set, and the 
operations are repeated till all the hulls are removed. 

From the paddy machines the brown rice grains go to the "first break hullers," consisting of a grooved 
cyUnder revolving within a concentric hollow cyUnder. In this machine friction loosens the bran or outer 
browni.sh coating of the hulled grain, and the stream of rice then passes to the "first break reel," which 
removes the loosed bran. A second set of hullers, with parts more closely adjusted, then loosens more of 
the bran and the rice stream then passes to another reel, which removes the "second break bran." 

In a very few mills the last two operations areincreased by the addition of "pearling cones" which follow 
the hullers. The object of the jiearling cones is to permit such adjustments of the hullers as to lessen the 
violenceof the friction , to make the removal of the bran a more gradual process, and to diminish the propor- 
tion ofbrokenricegraius, which must besoldatalower pricethan thewnolegrains. The product removed 
by the pearling cones is called "pearling cone meal." U consists mainly of the layers which belong in the 
"ricepolish"in mills where no pearUng cones are installed. 

After going through theprocessesdescribed, the rice, which hasbecomd\'ery warm from friction, is passed 
tolargebins, whoreit coolsforseveralhours. Itistheupas-sedon tothe"Drus"h." This cnrtsisi-^ of a vertical 
cylindrical frame covered with a thick padding of soft leather striiis, the forward edge of w hiih is fast, while 
tne other edge is free, so as to throw it outward by centrifugal force. This causes the Iraihrr stri[is to rub 
vigorously against the stream of rice which is falling from the toi) of the cylinder, whik' the leal her frame 
revolves rapidly within a cyUnder of wire screen. This jirocess of polishing removes by friction the last of 
the inner bran coats, and the fine powder resulting is called rice polish. (Department of Agriculture 
Bulletin No. 570, Aug. 11, 1917.) 



PEODUCTION OF PEINCIPAL FEEDS. 



43 



Rice polish consists of the last bran layers and some part of the 
starch from the rice grain inside the bran layers. It is a fine powder 
with a small proportion of minute particles of broken grain and a 
very small part of the germ. 

Rice polish is an excellent horse and cattle feed, but when fed to 
these animals is mixed with less concentrated feed. It may be fed 
straight to hogs, and when made into a slop is considered by some 
•feeders the best hog feed known. The polish contains more starch 
and less protein and fat than are contained in the bran. 

Pearling cone meal is the by-product resulting from the use of 
pearling cones, and consists of about 70 per cent bran and 30 per cent 
polish. It is sometimes sold under the name of pearling cone meal 
and sometimes mixed with and sold as either bran or polish. This 
by-product is not important because so few of the mills produce it. 

Production. — The estimated annual production of rice bran and 
polish for the years 1913 to 1919 is given in the follo%ving table: 

Table 4. — Estimated production of rice bran and rice polish, by years, 19 13-1919, 
inclusive} 



Year. 


Rice bran. 


Rice polisli. 


Year. 


Rice bran. 


Rice polish. 


1913 


Tom. 
49,207 
45,042 
55,243 
78,219 


Tom. 
11,640 
10,655 
13,068 
18,503 


1917 


Tons. 
66,223 
73,743 
78,248 


Tons. 


1914 


1918 


17,445 
18,510 


1915 


1919 


1916 









I Compiled by statistical department Louisiana State Rice Milling Co. (Inc.). The estimate was made 
on the basis of an average production of 13.95 pounds of rice bran and 3.30 pounds of rice polish from 
a barrel (162 pounds) of rough rice. 

Rice bran is used entirely as a stock feed and is consumed largely 
in the vSouth. Rice polish is used to some extent in the arts, but the 
proportion so consumed has not been determined. Unlike rice bran 
it is suitable for shipping long distances. Hence it is more widely 
distributed than that commodity. 

Section 3. Starch and glucose by-products. 

The main primary products of the starch and glucose factories are 
the dry starcnes, corn sirups and sugars, the dextrines, and corn oil. 
In the manufacture of these commodities by-products are turned 
out which are important feeds for live stock. These are corn gluten 
meal, corn gluten feed, and corn oil cake, and corn oil cake meal. 
Corn oil cake meal is the ground form of corn oil cake and is also 
known as corn germ meal and germ oil meal. 

Process of manufacture. — In the manufacture of starch and 
glucose products the shelled com, which is the raw material, is first 
passed through a cleaning machine, which removes pieces of cob, 
dirt, dust, etc. It is then immersed in large steeping tanks, where 
it remains about two days. This causes the corn to soften and swell 
and the component parts are loosened. The water takes up the corn 
solubles and is drawn off and evaporated and the resultant material 
forms part of tne corn gluten feed."" The steeped corn is then ground 
coarsely so that the germ is not broken, but the interior starch cells 

80 Formerly this seep water was allowed to run to waste. (Heury and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 154.) 



44 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

are set free. The resultant soft mass is run into separators filled 
with a mixture of staroh and water. The germs, which contain the 
oil, are lighter, rise to the surface, and flow off to sci-eens by which 
thev are separated from the raw starch (starch and gluten). The 
hulls being heavier sink to the bottom, and are also screened from 
the raw starch and form a part of the corn gluten feed. 

The raw starch, which consists of the endosperm and is composed 
of starch and gluten, now passes over a series of tables. The gluten 
runs off at the end and afterwards forms part of the corn gluten feed. 
The starch settles to the bottom and is later removed. After the 
starch has been separated from the bran and gluten, these two latter 
are united and are sold as corn gluten feed. Sometimes the gluten 
is not mixed with the bran, but is dried and sold as corn gluten meal. 

The germ of the corn, which contains considerable oil, is ground 
and cooked and most of the oil squeezed out in powerful presses. 
The residue is called corn oil cake, and, as stated above, when ground 
is known variously as corn oil cake meal, corn germ meal, and germ 
oil meal.^"" 

Corn gluten meal. — This by-product is sometimes also called 
corn by-product without corn bran to distinguish it from corn gluten 
feed, wliich contains the bran or hulls in addition to the gluten. It 
is one of the richest concentrates in protein. One of the leading 
brands is guaranteed to contain not less than 40 per cent protein. 
The results of 307 analyses compiled by Henry and Morrison, of high- 
grade corn gluten meal show an average protein content of 35.5 per 
cent, with 4.7 per cent fat, and 2.1 per cent fiber. 

Corn gluten meal, though a very valuable feed, is not of great 
importance commercially on account of the small production, most 
of it bemg mbccd with the bran and sold as corn gluten feed.-" 

Corn gluten feed. — Corn gluten feed, or, as it is generally called, 
gluten feed, is also rich in crude protem, though it contains much less 
protein, somewhat less fat, and considerably more fiber than corn 
gluten meal. The leading brands on the market are guaranteed to 
contain 23 per cent protem. The averages determined from SOD 
analyses show 25.4 per cent crude protein, 3.8 per cent fat, and 7.1 
per cent fiber. 

Corn gluten feed is used principally as a feed for dairy cows, though 
it is also fed to other aninaals. 

Corn oil cake or corn germ cake and corn oil meal or corn 
germ meal. — This by-product has already been described. Exports 
are made in the form of cake, while the meal is generally used in this 
country.^- The protein content of this feed is somewhat lower than 
that 01 corn gluten feed, but the fat content is much higher than in 
either corn gluten feed or corn gluten meal. The average of 36 
analyses of high-grade germ oil meal shows crude protein, 22.6 per 
cent; fat, 10.8 per cent; fiber, 9 per cent. Similar figures for low- 
grade germ oil meal, based on 22 analyses, are 13.7 per cent, 10.4 
per cent, and 8.7 per cent, respectively. One well-known brand on 
the market, however, has a guaranteed fat content of only 5 per cent, 
though samples analyzed by State officials showed 7 or S per cent of fat. 

^I'-'Corn and lis Uses, piililished bv the American Manufacturer.s' Association of Products from Corn. 
»i Bull., p. 190; Heiiry aud Morrison, 17th ed., p. 154. 
" Heury aud Morrison, 17tli ed., p. 155. 



PRODUCTION" OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



45 



Production. — Practically the entire output of cornstarch and 
glucose products and by-products is produced by 10 companies. The 
Commission secured the statistics of the corn gluten feed and corn 
oil cake and meal produced by these companies during the years 
1913-1919, inclusive. The aggregate output of these 10 companies, 
which may be taken as substantially the total for the United States, 
is shown in the following table: 



Table 5. — Production of com gluten feed and corn oil cake and meal, by ten principal 
manufacturers, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive. 



Year. 


Corn gluten 
feed.' 


Corn oil 

cake and 

meal. 


Year. 


Corn gluten 
feed.i 


Corn oil 

cake and 

meal. 




Tons. 
327,323 
303, 288 
358,718 
422,059 


Tons. 
39,363 
35,573 
38,305 
38,031 




Tmis. 
417,111 
497,354 
444,826 


Tons. 
36,494 
40,480 
30,812 


1914 


191S 


191.5 


1919 


1916 









1 Including comparatively small quantities ot corn gluten meal. 

The annual production of corn gluten feed during the seven-year 
period covered has ranged from 303,000 tons to 497,000 tons. The 
average for the five-year period ending with 1919 was 428,000 tons. 
The output of corn oil cake and meal ^^ is much smaller, being less in 
recent years than 10 per cent of the production of corn gluten feed. 

Section 4. Brewery and distillery by-products and yeast and vinegar 
by-products. 

The by-products of brewmg and distillmg which are used as feeds 
for live stock are called brewers' grains and malt sprouts and dis- 
tillers' grains. Yeast and vinegar dried grams are obtained as by- 
products from the manufacture of yeast or vinegar. 

Processes of manufacture. — The following orief description of 
the manufacture of brewers' grains and malt sprouts is taken from 
the Productive Feeding of Farm Animals, by F. W. Woll:'^ 

Brewers' grains are the by-product obtained in the manufacture of beer. The 
Ijarley is steeped in warm water and held at a warm temperature until it begins to 
sprout ; by tliis proces.s the starch content in the grain is converted into sugar (maltose), 
tlirough the action of the ferment diastase found in barley. When the malted barley 
contains a maximum amount of sugar it is quickly chied. The tiny dry sprouts are 
then separated and form the feed called malt sprouts, while the remaining dried grains 
make what is known as malt. This is treated with large quantities of water to extract 
the sugar, ash, and other soluble components; the extracted malt mak&s wet brewers' 
gi'ains, and these, on drying in vacuum, are changed into dried brewers' grains. 

Distillers' gi-ains are the residue obtained in the manufacture of 
alcohol and distilled lif[uors from cereals. The rye or corn from 
which the liquor is made is ground and heated in large steel drums, 
in order thoroughly to cook the starch grains. The ground grains 
are then cooled and treated with a solution of malt and part of the 
starch is changed to maltose or malt sugar. The sugar is changed 
into alcohol by the addition of yeast. The alcohol is distilled off, 
leaving a watery residue known as distillers' slops. These slops are 
often fed to steers at or near the distillery, and such cattle are known 

33 The figures do not include the output of corn mills, 
w Page 188; seealso Bull, pp. 200-201. 



46 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

on the live-stock market as "distillers." Distillers' slops are also fed 
to hogs. The grains from the slop are also dried in driers especially 
constructed for tlie purpose and put on the market as distillers' dried 
grains. They consist of the hulls, germ, protein, and carbohydrates 
of nutritive value. Corn makes the best and rye the poorest dis- 
tillers' grains.^' 

Yeast and vinegar dried grains are described as follows: 

Yeast or vinegar dried grains are the dried residue from the mixture of cereals, 
malt and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal), obtained in the manufacture of 
yeast or vinegar. They consist of corn or corn and rye, from which most of the starch 
has been extracted, together with malt added during the manufacturing process to 
change the starch to sugars, and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal), added 
during the manufacturing process to aid in filtering the residue from the wort and 
serve as a source of food supply for the yeast.™ 

Characteristics of brewery and distillery feeds. — The wet 
brewers' and distillers' grains are hardly to be considered commercial 
feeds in the ordinary sense. Though they are often sold, from their 
very nature it is necessary to use them shortly after they are made 
and near the place of production. They can not be shipped long dis- 
tances. On tlie other hand, dried brewers' and distillers' grains can 
be kept indefinitely and shipped like other commercial feeds." 

Brewers' dried grains are said to be an excellent feed for cattle and 
horses but not fitted for hogs on account of their high content of crude 
fiber. 

According to Henry and Morrison, the average of 431 analyses of 
brewers' dried grains shows crude protein, 26.5 per cent; fat, 6.9 per 
cent; and fiber, 14.6 per cent. The corresponding results for 139 
analyses of samples contamin^ less than 25 per cent protein were 
23.1 per cent, 6.4 per cent, and 15 per cent, respectively. 

Malt sprouts are a light, bulky, and somewhat dusty feed. They 
contain a considerable amount of protein but are said to be not very 
palatable. On account of its dustiness this feed is either mixed witn 
other concentrates or with silage, or is moistened or soaked before it 
is used. It is an especially valuable dairy feed and may be used in 
limited quantities for other animals. The average of 253 analyses of 
malt sprouts showed 26.4 per cent protein, 1.5 per cent fat, and 12.6 
per cent fiber. 

Distillers' dried grains make a rich and valuable feed for farm ani- 
mals. In the rye grains the protein content is 30 per cent or less, 
while in the better grades the protein may run as high as 34 to 36 per 
cent, with 10 to 12 per cent of fat or more. The distillers' dried 
grains, according to one of the textbooks on animal nutrition, "have 
a high digestibility and must be classed among our most satisfactory 
and economical protein feeds, of a value nearly similar to oil meal 
when fed in rations for dairy cows."^^ They are said to be unsuitable 
for hogs, except in small amounts, on account of their high fiber con- 
tent. 

It is said that yeast and vinegar dried grains probably have a 
feeding value similar to distillers' dried grains. 

Production. — The estimated annual production of brewers' dried 
grains and malt sprouts for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1913 to 
1920, inclusive, is shown in the following table: 

«■ Wnll, pp. 1S9-190, and Bull, p. 192. 

"Bull, p. 231. 

« Woll, pp. 188-189. 

M Woll, p. 190; see also Bull, pp. 192-198. 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



47 



-Estimated production of hreuxrs' dried grains and malt sprouts, by fiscal years 
ended June 30, 1913-19S0, inclusive.^ 



Fiscal year. 


Brewers' 
dried 
grains. 


Malt 
sprouts. 


Fiscal year. 


Brewers' 
dried 
grains. 


Malt 
sprouts. 




Tons. 

490,000 

496,000 

449,000 

440,000 


Tons. 
54,000 
55,000 
50,000 
49,000 


1917 


Tons. 
456,000 
377, 000 
208,000 
69,000 


Tons. 
51,000 




191S 


42,000 
23,000 
7,700 




1919 




1920 







1 This estimate of the output of brewers* dried grains and raaU sprouts is based on thestatement by the 
United States Brewers' Association that the by-product from the production of 60,000,000 barrels of beer 
will amount to 450,000 tons of dried grains and 50,000 tons of malt sprouts. The output of fermented liquors 
by fiscal years was as follows: 1913, 65,324,876; 1914, 66,189,473; 1915, 59,808,210; 1916, 58,633,624; 1917, 
60,817,379; 1918, s0,266,216; 1919, 27,712,648; and 1920, 9,231,280 barrels. (Report of Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue, 1918, p. 169, and 1920, p. 171.) 

No satisfactory statistics or estimates of the production of dis- 
tillers' dried grains were secured. This product is naturally of 
comparatively small importance since the advent of nation-wide 
prohibition. 

Statistics of yeast-dried grains were secured from the leading 
producer. The annual output for this concern from 1913 to 1919, 
inclusive (with an estimate for 1920), was as follows: 

Table 7. — Production oj yeast-dried grains by the principal vianujacturer , by years, 
1913-1920, inclusive. 



Year. 


Tons. 


Year. 


Tons. 




11, 576 
13,515 
15,903 
22,555 


1917 


22,381 

25,698 

14,852 

'12,000 




1918 


1915 


1919 




1920 







1 Estimated by producer. 

It is stated on competent authority that probably not more than 
1,000 tons of yeast-dried grains are produced yearly by other manu- 
facturers. It is also stated that most of this commodity goes directly 
to feeders and probably very little into commercial mixed feeds. 

Most of the yeast manufacturers have recently substituted beet 
molasses for cereals as the raw material in the manufacture of yeast. 
In the future, therefore, it is probable that the supply of yeast grains 
will be negligible. It will be noted that the estimated production 
for 1920, as shown in the above table, was less than half the 
production for 1918. 

The total production of vinegar grains for the United States is 
comparatively small. 

Section 5. Oil-mill by-product's. 

The oil-mill by-products arc the residues left after the extraction 
of the oil from various seeds and nuts. By far the most important 
among these are cottonseed by-products and flaxseed by-products. 
Peanut cake and meal, coconut-oil meal, and soy-bean cake and meal 
may also be mentioned as important feeds in this group. The minor 
oil-mill by-products are those derived fi'om sunflower seed, rapeseed 



48 COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 

sesame seed, hempseed, palm nuts, and a few others. Most of these 
are little used in this country but are better known in Europe. 

Cottonseed by-products. — Cotton seed was long used in mix- 
tures with bran, meal, etc., as an animal feed; but the modern uses 
of cottonseed oil have made the whole seed too valuable to be used 
to any extent directly as feed. The chief by-products from the 
manufacture of cottonseed oil are cottonseed caKe and meal, cold 
pressed cottonseed cake, cottonseed feed, cottonseed hulls, and the 
so-called cottonseed hull bran, all of which are used as feed. 

Process of manufacture and description of by-products. — When 
cotton seed comes from the gin there is a furry coat of very short 
fibers adhering tenaciously to the seed. This fibrous material is called 
linters or hull fiber. Some varieties of cotton seed have very little 
of this hull fiber and others as high as 200 pounds or more per ton 
of seed. 

Wlien the linters have been removed the seeds appear black and 
of an irregular oval shape. The average size is that of a small pea 
and the outer covering or hull is of a smooth, hard texture. Witnin 
this thick, hard hull is the folded embryo of the cotton plant, the 
kernel or meat of the cotton seed. It contains the oil and most of 
the other materials which give the seed value as a feed and fertilizer. 
Wide differences are found in the chemical composition of cotton 
seed according to the part of the cotton belt in which they are grown, 
and these differences show markedly in all the cottonseed products. 

The process of extracting the oil from the cotton seed involves 
the following steps: Removmg all dirt and foreign matter from the 
seeds; stripping the seeds of the linters or hull fibers; opening the 
seeds; separating the kernels or meats from the hulls; crushing 
and steaming the meats; wrapping and molding the meats for the 
presses; extracting the oil in hydraulic presses. 

These processes yield the main product — cottonseed oil — and the 
by-products, linters, hulls, and, cake, as the residue is called after 
the greater part of the oil has been expressed. When this cake is 

{;round it is called cottonseed meal. Various uses are made of the 
inters, but only the cake, meal, and hulls are used as animal feeds. 
Cottonseed feed is the product resulting from the mi.xture of greater 
or less quantities of hulls with the meal. (See Chap. IV, sec. 8.) 

Cottonseed hulls. — Cottonseed hulls have already been described 
as the thick, hard outer covering of the seeds. Their composition 
and qualities are considered in Chapter IV, section 8. It is sufficient 
to mention the fact that they are generally regarded as having com- 
paratively low feeding value, and that, other things being equal, the 
greater the amount of hulls included with the meal the lower will be 
the protein content of the product. 

The hulls are sometimes finely ground and freed from the particles 
of lint which were left in the delinting process, the resulting product 
being commonly but erroneously callecT cottonseed hull bran. 

Cottonseed cal-e. — It has already been stated that the hard residue 
of the meats after the oil is expressed is called cottonseed cake. It is 
in slabs 13| by 32 inches and about 1 inch thick. This by-product 
differs considerably in its content of ammonia and protein, owing to 
natural causes, arising from differences in seed, climate, and seasons. 
Moreover, the cake as it comes from the press always contains more 
or less hull particles. It is impossible to separate the hulls irom the 



PEODUCTION OF PEINCIPAL FEEDS. 49 

meats perfectly with the present machinery. The cake may contain 
as high as 20 per cent (by weight) of hulls or as low as 6 to 8 per cent. 
The average is about 12 to 15 per cent. Authorities differ on the 
proportion of hulls which should be left with the meats in order to 
secure the best results in extracting the oil, some crushers asserting 
that the best oil extraction is secured when the meats are freest 
from hulls. Those who argue for the presence of hulls with the meats 
say that the drainage of oil is better, and that unless a mill is fully 
equipped with the best modern machuiery it can not operate most 
efficiently by pressing the pure meats. While present milling meth- 
ods do not enable the oil miller to determine beforehand exactly the 
percentage of hulls which will go with the meats, the machinery and 
methods are such that he can approximate the minimum of 6 per cent, 
if he will ccjuip his mill with available machines. On the other hand, 
he can approximate some high proportion of hulls up to 20 per cent, 
if he believes it profitable to do so. 

There is no opportunity to mix into cottonseed cake more huUs 
than were left in the process of separating the hulls from the kernels. 
For this reason some purchasers prefer to buy cake rather than the 
meal, for they thus secure a more uniform product and one which 
could not have been adulterated by the addition of extra hulls. 
Some mills cut the cake into small lumps and sell these sacked. By 
far the greater part of the cottonseed cake manufactured, however, 
is ground into meal. Exports are generally in the form of cake. 

Cottonseed meal. — When the cake is ground a quantity of ground 
hulls may be poured into the hopper, giving the meal a higher per- 
centage of hulls than was in the cake. After the operation of gnnd- 
ing the cake has been completed it is also possible to mix any pro- 
portion of ground hulls with the meal. Another practice is the blend- 
ing of two meals havmg different percentages of protein to produce 
a meal of intermediate protein content. By these means meals can 
be made which differ considerably in protein content and hence in 
feeding and mai'ket values. 

About 20 per cent of the oil mills are equipped to grind cottonseed 
hulls and not more than 2 per cent are ecjuipped to remove from the 
hulls the fine particles of lint or hull fiber which are left after the 
delinting process. At least one mill of the latter class produces 
ground cottonseed hulls and sells them to the trade and to other 
mills. It is probable that other mills similarly equipped manufacture 
ground hulls solely for use in their own plants, and some of the mills 
which grind the unrefined hulls may supply these to other mills not 
equipped for grinding the hulls. Some dealers in cottonseed meal 
mamtain a plant for grinding hulls and mixing the ground product 
with meal, in order to reduce its protein content. 

The assertion is made by some oil millers and chemists who sei-ve 
the trade that it is scientific and proper to restore to the product of 
the cottonseed meats all the hulls taken from them, so that the meal 
shall contaiii all the hulls that originally went with the kernels from 
which it is made. This would necessitate adding ground hulls to 
the meal either during or after the grinding process. Some who 
defend this position hold that it is unfair to call this adulteration, 
since it is merely putting together materials which grew together in 
42976°— 21 4 



50 



COMMEKCIAL FEEDS. 



nature. Others defend the practice of adding ground hulls to the 
meal on the ground that this method enables them to supply a meal 
having the protein content demanded by the purchaser. 

In opposition to this practice others assert that it is adulteration, 
that the product should bear another name, and that products made 
in this way are not uniform. 

Decline in protein content of cottonseed meal. — Much has been said 
in recent years about the decline in the percentage of protein in cotton- 
seed meal. There seems to be ample evidence that there has been 
such a decline, and there can be little doubt that this has been due 
mainly to an increase in the proportion of ground hulls present in 
the meal. The fact that the percentage of protehi in cottonseed 
meals has been decreasing in the past 20 years is rather forcibly 
illustrated by the following table. This shows average results of 
analyses of cottonseed meal made at the Massachusetts Experiment 
Station since 1897. The number of samples analyzed seems to be 
sufficiently large to furnish accurate data for generalization. 

Table 8. — Average results oj analyses of cottonseed meal made at the Massachusetts 
Experiment Station, 1897-1919.' 



Year. 


Number of 
samples. 


Protein. 


Fat. 


Fiber. 




93 
190 
So 
30 
54 
87 
50 
70 
72 
79 
92 
55 


Per cent. 
46.2 
45.4 
42.0 
41.0 
41.0 
40.2 
40.2 
41.2 
39.7 
38.3 
37.0 
36.6 


Per cent. 
11.2 
9.6 
9.2 

S.2 
7.7 
7.7 
7.6 
7.7 
7.1 
7.0 
6.6 
6.7 


Per cent. 
5.8 




6.4 




7.3 




7.7 


1912 


i.i 




9.2 




9.4 




9.6 




10. S 




11.7 




12.4 




12.4 







1 Mass. ARricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 158 (December, 1914), p. 62; Control Series, Bulle- 
tin No. 10 (October, 1918), p. 21; Control Series Bulletin No. 11 (November, 1919), p. 30. 

' The figures cover the period beginning Sept. 1 of the proceeding year and ending Apr. 30 of the given 
year. 

It will be noted that there has been an almost steady decline in the 
percentage of protein in cottonseed meals analyzed at the Massachu- 
setts Experiment vStation, a considerable decrease in fat content, and 
a constantly increasing percentage of fiber. The average protein 
content of these samples has fallen from 46.2 per cent for the years 
1897-1902 to .3fi.6 per cent in 1919. As the protein content decreased 
the percent of fiber increased from 5.S per cent in the period 1897-1902 
to 12.4 per cent in 1919. This points to the substitution of hulls for 
part of the protein-bearing kernels. The per cent of fat as well as 
that of protein has decreased in rather marked degiee, but this is 
partly explained by improvements in oil extraction. The best 
extraction leaves about 6 per cent of oil in the cake. 

The decline in protein content was hastened by conditions during 
the World War. The great demand for linters for munitions purposes 
led to a more thorough delinting of the seed than had previously 
been the practice. Tliis more complete delinting of the seeds caused 
a larger proportion of the hulls to pass through with the meats in the 



PRODUCTION or PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 51 

process of separating hulls from meats. It is asserted that this prac- 
tice made a 36 per cent protein meal a sort of temporary standard, 
but apparently there is a rapid movement back to the higher grade 
of meal used before the war. An additional factor is increased freight 
rates, which make the purchase of the higher protein meals relatively 
more profital)le. 

The opinion is held by some that the reduction of the protein 
percentage in cottonseed meal is uneconomic, because the hulls in 
such meal are not of sufficient value to warrant shipping them long 
distances. It is argued that the most economical method of feeding 
cottonseed meal is to buy a meal of the highest protein content and 
to mix it with the best roughages available at the place where the 
meal is fed. 

It is also argued that the dissatisfaction resulting from the use of 
inferior meal will injure the market for all cottonseed meal, and that 
the temporary advantage of increased profits will be more than offset 
by the permanent bad effect on the trade. 

State officials and others opposed to the practice of reducing the 
proportion of protein by the addition of hulls take the position that 
cottonseed meal gained a trade position and definition when it was 
manufactured by methods of milling which separated from the 
meats as much of the hulls as possible, or as much as good milling 
practice rec|uires. It is therefore unfair, they say, and uneconomic 
and harmful to the trade to permit the sale of a product under the 
name of cottonseed meal which contains a higher percentage of hulls 
than occurs in the best methods of extraction. They hold that this 
product should bear a distinguishing name, in order that the buyer 
may be on his guard and may know exactly what he is buying. 

On the other side, it is argued that the higher protein meals do not 
bring a price in proportion to their feed value as compared with the 
lower protein feeds, and that oil millei-s would be perfectly willing 
to make the higher protein meals if they could secure prices commen- 
surate with tlieir feed value. 

Feeding value of cottonseed meal. — Cottonseed meal is a rich and 
economical source of protein and also an important fattening feed. 
However, it contains a toxic substance, and experiments and tests 
by experiment stations have shown that cottonseed cake or cotton- 
seed meal is not always a safe feed. It is often fatal to swine, and 
calves are easily affected by its poisonous properties. 

In spite of this undesirable ciuality, Henry and Morrison conclude 
that cottonseed meal is one of the most valuable feeds when used 
rationally, ''often being the cheapest available source of protein, 
and through it, of nitrogen for maintaining soil fertility." These 
WTiters also say: 

This most nutritious feed, the richest in fertilizing constituents of all our common 
feedin^atuffs of plant origin, is often spread directly on the land as a fertilizer. Obvi- 
ou-ily, its full value can be realized only when the meal is first fed to animals and 
the resulting manure applied to the soil.'*' 

Cottonseed cake and meal are too highly concentrated to be fed 
alone. They must be fed with roughage, and are usually mixed 
with roughage and other concentrates to make a balanced ration. 

» Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., pp. 174-175. 



52 



COMMERCIAL FEEnS. 



The following statement shows the average protein, fat, and fiber 
content of different grades of cottonseed meal, as determined by 
Henry and Morrison : 



Oradc. 


Crude 
protein. 


Fat. 


Fiber. 


Number of 
analyses. 




Per cent. 
44.1 
39.8 
37.6 


Percent. 
9.1 
8.3 

8.2 


Pit cent. 
8.1 
10.1 
11.5 


2,5,16 
1,.122 






482 







Cold pressed cottonseed cake. — In the ordinary process of oil 
extraction, as has been stated above, the seeds are hulled and 
the meats are subjected to heat before pressing. Sometimes, how- 
ever, seeds which are comparatively free from lint are put into the 
press whole (i. e., without being hulled) and subjected to great 
pressure without being heated or steamed. The residue after this 
process has been employed is the entire seed less the oil and lint 
removed. The cake is sold broken into pieces of nut or pea size, or 
it may be ground into meal. In the latter case it is called ground 
cold pressed cottonseed. 

This product contains the entire huUs and is therefore less highly 
concentrated and has a lower feeding value than cottonseed meal. 
Its average protein content is only about 26 or 27 per cent, whereas 
the minimum of protein permitted in cottonseed meal under the 
definitions of the Association of Feed Control Officials is 36 per cent. 

The average of 64 analyses of cold-pressed cottonseed cake by 
Henry and Morrison showed 26.1 per cent crude protein, 7.7 per 
cent fat, and 24 per cent fiber. 

Production. — The annual production of cottonseed cake and 
meal and cottonseed hulls, as reported by the Bureau of the Census, 
is shown in the following table for the years 1913-1919, inclusive. 

Table 9. — Estimated jrrodiiclion oj cottonseed cake and meal, together ivith exports 
and estimated domestic consumption; also estimated production of cottonseed nulls, 
by years, 1913-1919, inclusive.' 





Cotton seed. 


Cake and meal. 




Year. 


Produced. 


Cmsheil. 


Produced. 


Ex- 
ported . 


Domestic consumption. 


Hulls 
produced. 




Total. 


Feed. 


Ferti- 
lizer. 




1913 


Tons. 
6,30.5,000 
7,186,000 
4,992,000 


Tons. 
4,847,628 
5,779,665 
4, 202, 313 
4, 479, 176 
4,251,680 
4, 478, 508 
4, 012, 7M 


Tons. 
2, 220, (KM 
2,648,000 
1,923,000 
2, 225, 000 

2, 068, mn 

2, 170, 000 
1,817,000 


Tons. 
399, 987 
739, 533 
.528,611 
57.5, 080 

22,:J40 
155, 813 
224, 786 


Tons. 
1,820,013 
1,908,467 
1,394,389 
1,649,920 
2. 045, 660 
2, 014, 187 
1,592,214 


Tons. 
1,080,013 
1,02.5,467 

7.53, 389 

907,920 
1, 3.56, 660 
1,291,187 

986, 214 


Tons. 
740, (KW 
883,000 
641, 000 
742, 000 
6X9, OIX) 
723,000 
606,000 


Tims. 
1,400,000 




1,077,000 


1915 


1, 220, 000 






1917 


5,040,000 
5, 360, 000 
5,074,000 


996,000 


1918 


1, 137, 000 


1919 


1,143,000 







1 All fipiires except those showing distribution of domestic consumption between feed and fertilizer 
were obtained from Bulletin 145, published by the Bureau of the Census on Cotton Production and Dis- 
tribution, 1919-20, p. 9G. 

The quantity of cottonseed meal used as fertilizer was taken as one-third of total production according 
to estimate of Department of Agriculture. (Seo Bulletin 798, 1919, p. 11.) 

The dome-stic consumption for feeding purposes was computed by deducting the estimated quantity 
used as fertilizer from the total production of cake and meafla^s exports. 

The figures for quantity of seed produced relate to the growth year, and quantity crushed and cake 
and meal jiroduced to the year beginning Aug. 1, while export 'figures are for the year ending June 
30 following. 



PRODUCXION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 53 

Imports of cottonseed cake have been comparatively small. 
During the four fiscal years ended June 30, 1916, the largest imports 
were 5,787 tons in the fiscal year 1915. For the subsequent years 
imports were as follows: 1917, 17,141 tons; 1918, 14,939 tons; 
1919, 25,689 tons; and 1920, 17,547 tons. 

Flaxseed by-prodccts. — The manufacture of linseed oil from 
flaxseed yields the by-product linseed oil cake or meal, which is a 
very valuable stock feed. Other flax by-products are flax feed or 
screenings, which are referred to in Chapter IV, section 2, and un- 
screened flax oil feed, the by-product resulting from the extraction 
of the oil from unscreened flaxseed. There is also a by-product from 
the manufacture of rugs from the flax plant, known as flax plant 
by-product,^' which is also described in Chapter IV, section 2. 

Process of manufacture. — Flaxseed is very rich in oil. On the aver- 
age about 19 pounds of od are extracted from a bushel of seed (56 
pounds). There are two methods of extracting the oil, called respec- 
tively, the old process and the new process. By the old process the 
oil is extracted from the cleaned seeds by crushing and pressure, 
while by the new process it is dissolved out of the crushed seed with 
naphtha or some other volatile solvent. The oldest method was to 
subject the cold crushed seeds to heavy pressure, which expressed 
fi'om 70 to 80 per cent of the oil, the residue bemg a cake containing 
10 to 15 per cent of oil. Later the warm-pressure process was intro- 
duced. By this method the crushed seeds are moistened, heated to 
160° to 180° F., and subjected, to a pressure of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds 
to the square inch. This increased the oil extraction to about 90 
per cent, leaving a cake containing about 6 or 7 per cent of oil. 

After the removal of the oil by the old process the residue is a 
hard, boardlike cake about 1 inch thick, 1 foot wide, and 3 feet long. 
It may be sold in this form as old process linseed cake, or broken 
into small pieces, but usually the cake is ground into a fine meal. 
This is variously known as old process linseed oil meal, linseed meal, 
or simply oil meal. In the United States nearly all the linseed oil 
meal is made by the old process." 

The new process is described as follows: 

In the new proces.'i of manufacture the flaxseed i.s ground and heated to about 160° 
F., and is then placed in larf;e percolators holding about 1,000 bushels or more. The 
seed is treated repeatedly with najAtha till practically all the oil is dissolved. Live 
steam is then introduced into the percolators and the naphtha gradually driven out 
of the mass. The meal is transferred to steam-heated driers, and, when dried, elevated 
to the meal bins and sacked. The naphtha is evaporated fi'om the oil solution, and 
commercial linseed oil remains.''^ 

Properties of linseed meal. — The average protem content of old pro- 
cess Imseed meal is about 34 or 35 per cent, and it contains about 7.5 
per cent of fat. New process meal runs higher in protein — about 37 
per cent — but it contains only a small amount of fat — about 3 per 
cent. The following fio;ures show the average protein, fat, and fiber 
content, respectively, of the meal from the two processes: Old process 
(714 analyses), 33.9 per cent, 7.5 per cent, 8.4 per cent; new process 
(182 analyses), 36.9 per cent, 2.9 per cent, 8.7 per cent." 

<i This is not an oil-mill by-product, but is mentioned in tbis connection because it is derived from the 
flax plant. 
« Woll, p. 195: Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 175. 
« WoU, p. 195. 
" Henry and Morrison, 17th cd., p. 636. 



54 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Though the new process meal carries a higher percentage of pro- 
tein, there is but little more of it digestible than in the old process 
meal. This lower diwstibility is attributed to the use of steam for 
driving off the naphtha in the new process, since cooking lowers the 
digestibility of many fooils rich in crude protein. ^^ 

The relative values of the old and new process meals are much 
discussed; it is said that many farmers are prejudiced in favor of the 
former, possibly because anything considered as a food is regarded 
with suspicion if it has been treated chemically. Prof. Jordan ex- 
presses the opinion that "no good evidence exists, however, that 
new process meal is less palatable or less healthful than the old 
process product, nor has practice demonstrated that in a general way 
it is less nutritious."^" 

The authorities generally regard linseed meal as a very valuable 
feed." 

Production. — While no definite figures are available showing the 
total production and consumption of linseed cake and meal in the 
United States, the following table shows the estimated production, 
exports, and net amount available for domestic consumption of lin- 
seed cake and meal for the seven years, 1913-14 to 1919-20: 



Table 10.- 



-Estimnted production of linseed cake and meal, hy crop years, 1913-14 to 
1919-20, inclusive. 





Flaxseed. 


Linseed cake and meal. 


Crop year. 


Domestic 
production. 


Imports for 

domestic 
consimiption. 


Exports. 


Produc- 
tion.! 


Exports. 


Domestic 
consump- 
tion. 


1913-14 


Bushels. 
17,853,000 
13, 749, 000 
14,030,000 
14, 296, 000 

9,164,000 
13,369,000 

7,661,000 


Bushels. 

8,652,022 
10,.'!73,902 
14,637,543 
12, 484, 859 
12,785,034 

8,433,426 
23,367,328 


Bushels. 
305,546 
4,145 
2,614 
1,017 
21, 481 
15,574 
24,044 


Tons. 
440,991 
404,578 
484,136 
451, 147 
366,232 
363, 770 
525,075 


Tans. 
331,434 
262,397 
320,458 
268, 492 
75,700 
101,394 
168, 168 


Tom. 
109,557 


1914-15 


142, 181 


1915-16 


163,678 


1916-17 


182,655 


1917-18 


290,532 


1918-19 


262,376 


1919-20 


356.907 







* Domestic production of flaxseed plus imports for domestic consimiption less exports and less 1,000,000 
bushels armually for seed; 1 bushel of flaxseed estimated to produce 35 pounds of cake. 

Flax plant by-product. — Accurate figures of the production of 
flax plant by-product could not be secured. It appears to be pro- 
duced by less than six concerns. From production figures submitted 
by three leading manufacturers it is believed that the average annual 
production of flax plant by-product for the past three years is 
approximately 8,000 tons. 

Peanut oil by-products. — The principal commercial peanut 
feeds are the by-products of the peanut oil industry, though in the 
South, where the peanut crop is produced, whole peanuts and peanut 
hay are also fed to stock. The chief by-products of the manufac- 

« Jordan, pp. 260-263; WoU, p. 196; Bull, p. 207; Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 176. 

« Jordan, p. 262. 

« The following statement from Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 176, is typical of their views: "There 
is no more healthful feed for limited use with all farm animals than lin.sccd oil cake or oil meal, with its 
rich store of crude protein, sUghtly laxative oil, and its mucQaginous, soothing properti&s. Its judicious 
use is soon apparent in the pliable skin, the sleek, oily coat, and the good handling quahty of the flesh of 
animals receiving it. It is therefore most useful as a conditioner for run-down animals. A small 
amount of linseed meal is helpful in the rations for horses and dairy cows." 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 55 

ture of peanut oil are peanut cake and meal and unhulled peanut 
oil feed. 

Process of manufacture. — The machines used for crushing peanuts 
are the same as those used for crushing cottonseed hulls, with the 
exception that the delinting machines, which remove the hull fiber 
from the cotton seeds, are not needed in crushing peanuts. The 
steps in the process of manufacturing peanut oil are roughly as 
follows: Removing the hulls or shells from the kernels, cooking the 
kernels, passing the cooked kernels between rollers and pulverizing 
the mass of meats, molding and wrapping the meats in haircloth, 
submitting the molds to hydraulic pressure of 4,000 pounds to 8,000 
pounds per square inch in the oil presses. This forces out most of 
the oil. An effort is made not to leave more than G per cent of oU 
in the residue of the meats as it comes from the presses. 

Peanut calce and meal. — The hard residue remaining after the oil 
has been expressed is called peanut cake. The cakes are about 
12^ by 32 inches by 1 inch thick. The peanut cake is more brittle 
than cottonseed cake and contains some hulls, since the process of 
separating hulls from kernels is never complete. The separation is 
partly under the control of the miller, who can regulate to some 
extent the amount of hulls left with the meats. 

Peanut cake is generally ground into a meal called peanut meal. 
The Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association recognizes two 
grades of cake and meal, viz, choice and prime. The choice grade 
must contain not less than 44 per cent of protein, or 50 per cent 
combined protein and fat, and the prime grade not less than 34 per 
cent of protein or 40 per cent of combined protein and fat.** The 
average content of protein, fat, and fiber in peanut cake as deter- 
mined from 2,480 analyses was, respectively, 47.6 per cent, 8 per 
cent, and 5.1 per cent. Peanut meal is more palatable to stock 
than cottonseed meal and seems to contain no toxic substance. It 
is too higlily concentrated to feed without mixing with other feeds. 
Peanut meal of high grade, containing little or no hulls, has a high 
digestibility and feeding value. When the proportion of hulls is 
larger, the digestibility and feeding values are correspondingly less. 

Peanut meal is in strong demand and is largely sold near the 
mills where it is produced. It goes mainly to feeders and feed 
manufacturers, but a small part, probably not to exceed 20 per cent 
of the product, is used as fertilizer. 

The Commission was unable to secure satisfactory statistics of 
the annual production of peanut cake and meal. 

Peanut hulls or shells. — Peanut hulls are one of the so-called 
low-grade feeds, and their qualities are discussed in Chapter IV, 
section 2. 

vSome States, e. g., Alabama and Georgia, forbid the use of peanut 
liuUs as an ingredient of commercial feeds. However, some oil millers 
who shell peanuts report that there is a strong demand for bulk peanut 
hulls by mixed-feed manufacturers, the price in bulk running from $3 
to $5 a ton. Other millers report that they sell hulls in bulk both to 
feed manufacturers and to farmers. The latter use them for bedding 
for animals, and also for feed and fertilizer. In some places the 
hulls are used mainly for fuel. They are also mixed with palm oil 

" Rules Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association, 1920-21, pp. 25-27. 



56 



COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 



and used to polish tin plate. Some large oil millers 2^ind the hulls and 
bolt them and make a product incorrectly called peanut-hull hran, 
which is usefl to mix with peanut meal or other concentrated feeds. 
Ground peanut hulls are mixed with peanut meal, usually at the time 
of grinding, to lower the protein content or adulterate it. 

Whole preftsed pennnt.t. — In some cases peanuts are first cleaned and 
then passed through expellers or hydraulic presses which force out 
the oil without separating the hulls and kernels. The residue when 
ground is called ground whole pressed peanuts, or unhulled peanut- 
oil feed. Under the official definition of the product the ingredients 
must be stated as peanut meal and hulls. (See Appendix 2.) 
This is a feed of excellent value, though it contains a high percentage 
of hulls. It is permitted under the laws of Alabama and Georgia, 
in both of which States peanut hulls are forbidden as an ingredient 
of mixed feeds. 

Coconut cake or meal. — Coconut cake or meal is the residue 
left after extraction of the oil from the dried meat of the coconut, 
which is known as copra. The meal is variou.sly known as coconut- 
oil meal, coconut meal, and copra meal. It contains about 20 per 
cent of protein, or considerably less than linseed meal, cottonseed 
meal, peanut meal, or soy-bean meal. It is especially recommended 
for dairy cows, since it produces a butter of good quality and firm- 
ness. It is well adapted for summer feeding, but can not be kept 
long in hot weather on account of its tendency to become rancid. 
When fresh, coconut meal has a pleasant flavor and is greatly 
relished by cattle and other stock.''^ 

Production. — Copra, the raw material fi-om which coconut^oil meal 
is produced, is entirely an imported product. The following table 
shows the estimated cjuantity of coconut-oil meal available for domes- 
tic consumption for the year 1915-1920, inclusive: 

Table 11. — Estimated production and domestic conswmption oj coconut cake atid meal, 
by years, 1915-1920, inclusive. 



Year. 


Domestic 
produc- 
tion. 1 


Imports. 


Domestic 
consump- 
tion. 


Year. 


Domestic 
produc- 
tion.' 


Imports. 


Domestic 
consump- 
tion. 


1915 


Tons. 
18,952 
27, 770 
63,480 


Tom. 


Tans. 
18,952 
27, 797 
63,495 


1918 


Tons. 
75,280 
41,674 
37,481 


Tons. 
17 
12,705 
66,794 


Tons. 
75,297 
54,379 


1916 


27 
15 


1919 




1920 


! 104,011 







' Computed from net imports of copra on the basis of 35 per cent recovery of coconut cake. 
' Domestic exports of 264 tons of coconut meal have been deducted in arriving at tliis figure. 

It will be seen that the quantity of this by-product manufactured 
in the United States increased very rapidly from 1915 to 1918, in- 
creasing from 18,952 tons in 1915 to 75,280 tons in 1918, an increase 
of nearly 800 per cent. In 1919, however, the imports of copra fell 
off so gi-eatly that the estimated production of coconut-oil meal was 
not much over half that of the preceding year, while the production 
for 1920 was even less; but in that year so much coconut cake was 
imported that the total cjuantity available was much larger than in 
earlier years. 

" Henry and Morrison, 17th ed.. p. 179; WoU, p. 2U2; Bull, p. 214. 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 57 

This decrease in the imports of copra and the resulting decrease in 
domestic output of coconut-oil meal is explained by the fact that in 
the past two years the prices of coconut oil, the main product from 
copra, have been relatively so low that it has been more profitable to 
import the oil than to import copra and manufacture the oil in this 
country. 

Soy-bean cake and meal. — This is the residue after the extrac- 
tion of the oil from soy beans. The beans are crushed by the same 
machinery as is used in crushing cotton seed. There have been only 
small quantities of domestic beans available for crushing up to the 
present time. On the Pacific coast, oil mills have been crushing soy 
beans imported from the Orient for several years. There has been a 
ready sale for the cake and meal. Some feed manufacturers are also 
experimenting with soy-bean cake imported from the Orient.'^" 

Soy-bean meal has a high protein content, some analyses showing 
as high as 48 per cent. The average of 6 analyses (Henry and Mor- 
rison) gave crude protein 41.4 per cent, fat 7.4 per cent, and fiber 
5.3 per cent. Its chemical analysis and palatability give it a rank 
with cotton-seed meal and peanut meal as an excellent concentrate or 
feed ingredient. The protein has a digestibility of 97.7 per cent, and 
is therefore a highly digestible feed. It is too rich a concentrate to 
feed unmixed. It is undoubtedly of high feeding value, but so far 
the supply is very limited. 

Miscellaneous oil-mill by-products. — Among the minor oil- 
mill bj' -products maybe mentioned sunflower seed caSe, rapeseed cake, 
sesame seed cake and meal, and palm kernel oil meal. These feeds, 
as already stated, are better known in Europe than in the United 
States, and have been used only to a very limited extent in this 
country. 

Palm kernel oil meal. — This has been defined by the Association of 
Feed Control Officials as "the ground residue from the extraction of 
part of the oil by pressure or solvents from the kernel of the fruit of 
Elaeis guineenftis or Elaeis malanococca. 

Sesame cake. — This is the residue from the extraction of oil from 
sesame seed, containing about 55 per cent combined protein and fat 
and about 12 per cent crude fiber. 

The nature of the other miscellaneous feeds mentioned above is 
fairly well indicated by their names. They are not of sufficient im- 
portance to need further mention or description. 

The Association of Feed Control Officials gives definitions of "oil 
cake" and "ground oil cake." When these terms are used alone 
they are to be understood, according to these definitions, to designate 
the "product obtained from partially extracted, screened and 
cleaned fiaxseed." When used to cover any other product the name 
of the seed from which it is obtained should be prefixed to the term 
"oil cake" or "ground oil cake." '"' 

M Imports of sov-bean cake for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1913 to 1920, inclusive, wore as follows: 
3.502 tons, 1,582 tons, 2,988 tons, 5,234 tons, 5,880 tons, 293 tons, l',382 tons, and 8,137 tons. lu addition to 
the above imports of soy-bean cake, the following quantities of soy beans have been imported for the fiscal 
years ending June 30, 1914 to 1920, inclusive; 965 tons, 1,919 tons, 1,502 tons, 2,672 tons, 15,906 tons, 1,602 
tons, and 2,011 tons. 

" For definitions, see AppendLx 2. 



58 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Section 6. Sugar by-products. 

Dried beet pulp. — Tho beet-sugar factories yield two by-products 
which are used as stock feeds, namely, beet pulp and molasses. 
In the sugar factory the beets are thoroughly washed and then 
shredded and piacea in large vats. Pure water is then admitted 
and the sugar is soaked out by the diffusion process. The liquor 
is drawn off and the pulp, containing about 9.5 per cent of moisture, 
is conveyed to the driers, where after being run through presses 
and the moisture content reduced to about 8.5 per cent, it is put 
into the driers, where it is dried so that it contains less than 10 
per cent of moisture. The drying process lasts about one hour. 
The pulp as it leaves the drier is immediately sacked and is ready for 
shipment. About 5 to 6 per cent of the original weight of the beets 
is recovered in the pulp." 

Qualities of dried beet pulp. — Dried beet pulp is a valuable feed 
for dairy cows, steers, and sheep, and to a limited extent for other 
farm animals. The protein content is low and the carbohydrate 
content high. It contains about 60 per cent nitrogen-free extract 
(N. F. E.) and about 8 or 9 per cent protein and practically no fat.'"^ 

Dried pulp is usually moistened for several hours before feeding.^* 
It will absorb about five times its weight of water and will swell up 
to three times its original bulk.^'^ 

Prodiiciion. — No complete statistics of the annual production of 
dried pulp are available. There were 90 beet-sugar factories in opera- 
tion in the United States during the crop year 1919-20, which were 
owned by 42 operating companies.'"' Of these 90 factories but 
47 are equipped with beet-pulp driers, and these are owned by 30 
different operating companies. The quantity of beets worked in 
factories from 1913 to 1919 has ranged between 5,288,500 tons and 
6,150,293 tons." Assuming that the factories equipped with driers 
worked 3,000,000 tons of beets and that the recovery of dried pulp 
was 5 per cent, the average annual production would be 150,000 
tons. On the same basis the production from the 1920 crop of 
8,545,000 tons of beets worked will be in excess of 200,000 tons of 
dried beet pulp.^* 

Beet molasses. — Beet molasses is the residue of the beet juice 
after that part of its contents has been removed which can be recov- 
ered by crystallization in the form of granulated sugar. It contains 
60 per cent or more of nitrogen-free extract, nearly all of which is 
sugar. It also contains about 10 per cent of ash, mostly potash and 

" The Sugar-Beetin America, by Franllin S. Harris, p. 169. 

M Henrv and Morri.son, p. ftj?: Woll, p. 194. 

" Henrv and Morrison, 17th ed., p. IM: Woll, p. 19,'). 

» Bulletin No. 1. piiljlished by the Atn-icultural Department of the Oreat We,stern Sugar Co. on The 
Feeding of Dried Pulp in the North I'latte Valley during the feeding season of 1916-17, p. 4. 

M Report of Federal Trade Commission, Sugar Su])ply and Prices, p. 22. 

" .\griculture Department Year Book, 1919, p. 633; Monthly Crop Reporter, December, 1920, p. 148. 

•» Monthly Crop Reporter, December, 1920. 

In addition to the domestic production, according to Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United 
States, there were imported during tlie fiscal years specified the following quantities of dried beet pulp: 



Year. 


Tons. 


Year. 


Tons. 




13,649 

5,2S3 

6,6S3 

915 


1917-18 


2,679 




1918-19 


7,272 




1919-20 


13,266 


1910-1 / . . . 











PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 59 

soda. In the beet sugar districts it is usually a cheap source of 
carbohydrates. In feeding beet molasses it is generally thinned 
with water and sprinkled over hay, cut straw, and other roughage. 
It is very laxative on account of its content of alkali salts and other 
purgative substances, and hence must be fed sparingly.^" 

Beet molasses was formerly used to a considerable extent by 
manufacturers of mixed feeds in the so-called sweet feeds or molasses 
feeds. It seems probable, however, that in the future it will be of 
very small importance as a commercial feed. Beet molasses has now 
largely displaced malted grains as the raw material for the manu- 
facture of yeast. (Sec. 4.) This new demand seems likely largely 
to cut off the supply of this product for use as a feed. 

Cane blackstrap molasses. — " Blackstrap, or low-grade cane 
molasses, is the term given to the uncrystallizable residue, or syrup, 
obtained in the manufacture of sugar, or the sugar-refining process.' "" 

It is an almost pure carbohydrate feed, differing from beet molasses 
chiefly in the composition of the non-nitrogenous constituents and 
a smaller protein and ash content. Unlike beet molasses it has a 
sweet taste and is very palatable. It does not have the purgative 
effect of beet molasses, but on the contrary tends to be costive in its 
action."' Dr. Dalrymple, of the Louisiana College of Agriculture, 
mentions four qualities contributing to its value as a feed — its palata- 
bility, its high carbohydrate content (about 53 per cent) , the almost 
complete digestibility of the carbohydrates, and its cheapness under 
normal conditions as a source of carbohydrates."^ 

Henry and Morrison (17th ed.) point out that while the nitrogen- 
free extract of both cane and beet molasses is really all digestible, 
when molasses is fed with other feeding stuffs a depression of the 
digestibility of the basal ration occurs, due to the large amount of 
soluble carbohydrates it contains. Hence the digestibility of the 
nitrogen-free extract of cane molasses is reckoned at 90 per cent."^ 

Blackstrap has been used for a number of years as an appetizer 
and tonic for stock, but in recent years it has been used extensively 
as a regular ingredient of mLxed rations on farms and plantations, 
particularly in the South, where it has been fed largely to horses, 
mules, and fattening steers. It is reported to have a beneficial 
effect on the health of animals and their working capacity."* 

In recent years blackstrap has also taken a place as an important 
conmaercial feed, being used very extensively by manufacturers of 
mixed feeds in the so-called molasses or sweet feeds. 

Production. — The following table shows approximately the supply 
of blackstrap molasses from cane sugar for recent years. The taole 
shows first the production of blackstrap in Louisiana for the calendar 
years 1912 to 1919, inclusive. Figures showing the production of 
Louisiana blackstrap separately from other kinds of molasses are 
not available for the earlier years. 

The import figures given in the other columns are for fiscal years 
from 1908 to 1918 and for the calendar years 1919 and 1920. The 
imports from Porto Rico and Hawaii "include some higher-grade 

=' Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 186; Woll.p. 192. 

<" Blackstrap Cane Molasses, by W. H. Dalrymple. 

« Henry and Morrison , 17th ed., pp. 186-187; Woll, p. 193. 

" Louisiana State University Extension Circular No. 38. 

® Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 187. 

« Woll, p. 193; Louisiana Extension Circular No. 38. 



60 



COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 



molasses, and while it is not known how much this amounts to in any 
year, it can be stated that the quantities are very small. The 
import figures for Cuba and "all other" sources are for molasses not 
above 40 (polariscope test). 

Table 12. — Supply of cane blackstrap molasses, in galloi^s, by years, 190ii-1920, inclusive. 



Year. 


Production 
in Loiiisiana.o 


Imports. 


Porto Rico.'' 


Hawaii.'' 


Cuba.c 


All Other, c 


Fiscal: 

1908 


Qallons. 


Gallom. 
4,799,213 
8,359,363 
9,604,926 
8,868,860 
10,937,670 
11, 150, 572 
15,577,832 
18,004,811 
16,279,073 
18,751,212 
14,495,752 

15,554,493 
20,770,640 


Gallons. 

23 

624 

100 

1,801,796 

1,734,318 

3,736,877 

4,110,404 

5,202,913 

8,399,014 

10,979,383 

14,671,477 

9,882,567 
12, 120, 132 


Gallons. 
16,743,349 
20,994,836 
30,489,714 
20,000,337 
25,451,085 
29,468,901 
50,171,978 
64,748, 5<« 
82,501,070 
108,788,759 
126,055,181 

110,244,781 
148,062,098 


Gallons. 
109,273 


1909 












1911.. 




2,222,693 




7,756,054 
15,723,403 
11,190,908 

7.016,338 
14,272,535 
12,544,435 
16,101,650 

6,649,242 


1913. ... 


1,768,674 




1915 


3,594,221 
3,724,062 
2,205,714 


1916 . 


1917 


1918 


Calendar: 

1919 


7,554,290 
11,571,740 


1920 







o Calendar years. American Cane Growers' Association figures. 

b Molasses and simp. 

c Imports for consumption of not above 40° molasses. 

Total supplies of molasses from all sources are not shown in the 
table on account of the lack of strict comparability of the figures for 
the different sources, as just pointed out. It shows apjiroximately 
the blackstrap available in recent years for all uses. It is not 

f)racticable to give a satisfactory estimate of the proportion used as 
eed. It may be stated that the two main uses of tliis commodity 
are for the production of alcohol and for feeding purposes. The 
division of the supply between these two uses differs greatly at 
different times, depending on various factors, such as the relative 
price of molasses and other raw materials for alcohol manufacture 
(particularly corn), the demand for alcohol, and the demand for 
sweet feeds. The control of the supply of blackstrap is practically 
in the hands of the producers of alcohol. (See Ch. Vll, sec. 7.) 

The striking feature of the table is the very great increase in the 
imports from various sources in a comparatively few years. Imports 
from Porto Rico increased from less than 5,000,000 gallons in 1908 
to from 14,000,000 to 18,000,000 gallons in recent years. The 
imports from Hawaii, which were negligible in 1908, now run as 
high as 9,000,000 to 14,000,000 gallons. Cuban imports, which were 
less than 20,000,000 gallons in 1908, now amount to over 100,000,000 
gallons annually, being nearly at 1.50,000,000 gallons in 1920. 

As nearly as can be ascertained the total supply of blackstrap 
available for manufacturers in the United States has increased 
appro.ximately fivefold within 10 years. 

Section 7. Animal and fish by-products. 

Packing-house by-products. — The packing houses make a valu- 
able contribution to the feed industry by furnishing important 
by-products. These are tankage (also sold as meat scrap or meat 
meal), dried blood or blood meal, and ground bone or bone meal." 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



61 



Tanlcag'?. — Tankage is produced from meat scraps, intestines, 
bones, carcasses of dead and condemned animals, etc., by cooking in 
specially constructed tanks, under steam pressure of about 40 pounds, 
for from 4 to 12 hours, the average time being from 6 to 8 hours. 
After most of the grease and tallow have been removed from the 
cooked mass, the solid material is separated from the tank water 
and dried and ground."^ 

Tankage is used both as a fertilizer and for feeding purposes. 
That which is to be used for feeding "must necessarily be more 
carefully prepared, and be free from stomach matter, hair, paunch 
manure, and excess bone; and further, must be of particularly fine 
grinding and of the proper color." "" 

There is considerable variation in the composition of the animal 
by-products according to the amount of bone included. The Asso- 
ciation of Feed Control Officials stipulates in its definitions that 
digester tankage containing more than 10 per cent phosphoric acid 
must be designated as " digester meat and bone tankage.'' Similarly, 
lueat scrap and meat meal containing more than 10 per cent of phos- 

Ehoric acid must be designated "meat and bone scrap and meat and 
one meal." "' 

The feeds which are by-products of the packing houses are chiefly 
valuable for their high protein content. The best grades of tankage 
are sold under a guaranty of 60 per cent protein and 6 per cent fat, 
while meat meal or beef scraps contain 40 to 50 per cent protein, 8 
per cent or more of fat, and about 25 per cent ash, largely phosphate 
of lime.''- 

The average protein, fat, and fiber content of different grades of 
tankage, as determined by Henry and Morrison (17th ed.), are shown 
in the following statement: 



Grade. 


Crude 

protein. 


Fat. 


Fiber. 


Grade. 


Crude 
protein. 


Fat. 


Fiber. 


Over 60 per cent.... 
55-60 per cent 


63.1 
58.1 


12.9 
13.0 


3.6 
4.9 


45-55 per cent 

Below 45 per cent . . 


51.7 
40.4 


14.0 
17.0 


3.0 
3.7 



Tankage and meat meal are used chiefly as a hog and poultry feed, 
but mixed with other feeds may be fed to cattle, horses, or sheep."" 

Dried blood. — Dried blood is prepared by coagulating, drying, and 
grinding. The blood flowing from the slaughtered animals is con- 
veyed as soon as possible into vats, where it is heated by means of 
steam until coagulated. It is then placed in press cloths and as 
much moisture as possible is extracted in liigh-power presses, after 
which it is passed through hot-air driers until the moisture remaining 
constitutes but 5 to 10 per cent of the weight. The grinding process 
consists in passing the material through a cage mill, which breaks 
up the small lumps, so that the whole mass is in suitable condition 
for commercial purposes. Many abattoirs do not have facilities for 



«• Federal Trade roraraission, Report on the Fertilizer Industry, p. 67. 

«« The Amoricau Fertilizer Hand Boole, 1919, sec. J-2. 

" .'Vppenfii.x 2. 

«8 Woll, pp. 204-205. 

«« Woll, p. 204; Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 183. 



62 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



preparing dried blood, and at such plants the blood is run in with 
the tankage.'" 

Ground dried blood, which is also known as blood meal or blood 
flour, is the r'chest in protein of all the packing-house by-products 
and probably has a higlier protein content than any other live-stock 
feed. It carries over 80 per cent crude protein, sometimes as high 
as 86 per cent. It is low in mineral matter as compared with tankage. 
The average of 4.5 analyses showed crude protein, 82.3 per cent; fat, 
0.9 per cent; and no fiber. 

Blood meal is considered particularly valuable as an ingredient in 
feeds for young pigs and calves. 

Ratv hone meal. — This product, as the name indicates, consists of 
ground bone. It may be used, according to Henry and Morrison, to 
supply mineral matter particularly needed by yoimg and growing 
anmials when their rations are deficient in lime and phosphoric acid. 
These writers consider, however, that ground rock phosphate, which is 
usually cheaper, is probably just as effective as a mineral supplement." 

Production. — The annual production of the packing-house by- 
products used as feeds for live stock can be only approximately esti- 
mated, no actual figures being available. The estimates below of 
the production of tankage and blood are based on the figures fur- 
nished in a previous investigation," by F. S. Lodge, of the Aiinour 
Fertilizer Works, as showing the average cjuantity of tankage and 
blood recovered, by good practice, per head of live stock slaughtered. 



Material. 


Cattle. 


Calves. 


Sheep. 


Goats. 


Swine. 




POUTldS. 

12 

7 

6 


Pownds. 
2.4 

.75 

1.2 


Powndx. 
1.2 
.5 

.fi 


Pounds. 
1.2 
.5 

.6 


Poundt. 
4.8 


Blood ( 10 per cent moist tire basis) 

Concentrated tankape (5 per cent moisture, 10 per 


1.2 







These per head figures applied to the total number of animals 
slaughtered under Federal inspection plus one-third of the estimated 
commercial slaughter not under Federal inspection show the following 
estimated production in tons of abattoir tankage and dried blood 
for the calendar years 1913-1919: 

Table 13. — Eslinutlfd ■production of tankage and dried blood, hy years, 191,3-1919, 
inclusive. 



Year. 


Tankage. 


Dried 
blood. 


Year. 


Tankage. 


Dried 
blood. 


1913 


Tons. 

247,000 

237,000 

2fil,00fl 

29-1,000 


Tom. 
41,000 
40,000 
43,000 
4S,000 


1917 .. 


Tom. 
274,000 
323, (XX) 
311,000 


Tons. 
48,000 
50, 000 
52,000 


1914 




1915 


1919... 


1916 









While the above figures show the approximate production of ani 
mal tankage and blood, it is not definitely known what proportion of 

10 Federal Trade Commission, Report on Ihc Fertilizer Industry, pp. 66-67. 

"Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 1S4. 

'• Federal Trade Conmiission, Report on the Fertilizer Industry, pp. 70-72. , 



PBODUCnON OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



63 



these amounts were used as animal feed. However, a survey of the 
fertiUzer industry made by the Department of Agriculture showed, 
accordino; to returns received from 386 fii'ms reporting and which 
market the bulk of the tankage and blood produced, that of 182,320 
tons of high-grade tankage sokl by these firms in 1918 for feed and 
fertilizer 43 per cent was sold for feed and 57 per cent as fertilizer. 
About 17.5 per cent of the 32,578 tons of dried blood handled went 
for feeding purposes.'* 

The demand for tankage for feeding purposes centers largely on 
that guaranteed to contain a minimum of 60 per cent protein, and a 
late estimate '^ gives about 70 per cent of the production of high-grade 
tankage by the large packing houses as used for hog feed. 

Fish scrap and fish meal. — Fish scrap has long been used as a 
fertilizer. Fish meal, which is used for feed, is made by the same 
general methods as are now used in preparing dried fish s crap for 
fertilizer, namely, steam cooking of the raw materials, pressing, drying, 
and grinding. Fish meal compares favorably with high-grade digester 
tankage in protein content, being usually sold on a minimum guaranty 
of 55 per cent as against 60 per cent for high-grade tankage. 

The amount of fish meal used in this country for feeding purposes 
is small as compared with packing-house by-products. In recent 
years the Department of Agriculture has made efforts to develop 
the production of this commodity and to secm-e its increased use as 
a feed. As a result of experiments made by the department the 
conclusion was reached that "the universally favorable results 
obtained in the feeding of fish meal appear to warrant its extended 
use as a supplementary feedingstuff." 

The following conclusion is also stated by the department: 

Where fish meal can be ol)tained conveniently at a reasonable price and in suitable 
quantity, it has a very considerable value in pig feeding. \\Tien given a fair trial 
and used in proper proportions it should become one of the most popular as well as 
most remunerative protein supplements for pig feeding." 

Fish meal is also a valuable poultry feed, being used to a considera- 
ble extent in poultry mashes. It may also be fed to horses and 
cattle to a limited extent.'" 

Production. — The following tabulation gives the production of 
dried fish scrap by the menhaden industry on the Atlantic and 
Gulf coast and the production of fish scrap for fertilizer purposes and 
fish meal by the canners on the Pacific coast, by years, 1913 to 1919: 

Table 14. — Production of fish scrap and fi^h meal, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive. 





Menhaden 


Pacific coast. 


Year. 


Menhaden 


Pacific coast. 


Year. 


industry 
flsh scrap. 


Fertilizer 
flsh scrap. 


Fish meal. 


industry 
fi.sh scrap. 


Fertilizer 
fish scrap. 


Fish meal. 


1913 


Tons. 
36,580 
24, 20i5 
21,414 
22,458 


Tons. 

3,000 

2,099 

1,032 

776 


Tons. 


1917 


Tons. 
20,825 
16,047 
15,103 


Tons. 
1,390 

802 


Tons. 


1914 


i,284 
2,863 
2,640 




1,lTi 


1915 


1919 


1916 













o Fertilizer and fish meal. 

" U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 798 (1919), p. 8. 

'< National Provisioner, Apr. 17, 1920. 

"U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 378, pp. 16-20; and Bulletin No. 610, p. 9. 

'• Well, p. 205. 



64 COMMERCIAL, FEKDS. 

The menhaden industry afTonis one of, if not, the greatest prospec- 
tive source of supply of fish meal. It is only recently that grinding 
machinery has been installed by some of the fish factories centering 
on (^hesapeake Bay. Five concerns, including two of the largest, are 
now ef|uippcd for making fish meal. About 3, .500 tons of fish meal were 
sold from the 1019 production by one concern handling the greater part 
of the output of the menhaden fish factories. A number of mixed-feed 
manufacturers have for several years purchased considerable quanti- 
ties of dried fish scrap and converted it into fish meal in their own 
factories. The production of fish meal on the Pacific coast has 
increased from 1,284 tons in 1014 to 7,77.3 tons in 1918, and to about 
11,000 tons in 1919, while the fish scrap for fertilizer has steadily 
decreased. Two concerns in British Columbia in 1919 produced 
more than 1,000 tons of fish meal in addition to the 11,000 tons 
domestic production. 

Other potential sources of fish meal are the shrimp fisheries of the 
South AtJlantic and Gulf States and the fish canneries of the North 
Atlantic States. 

Section 8. Miscellaneous straight feeds. , 

In addition to the feeds wliich have been described in the preceding 
sections there are a great many commodities which are used as 
feeds for live stock and which to some extent are articles of commerce. 
It may be repeated here that no attempt is made in these pages even 
to mention by name the very large number of products which are used 
on the farms for feeding animals })ut which do not enter the channels 
of commerce except perhaps occasionally or only locally. 

ProV)ably the only really important product so far as present use 
is concerned which has not already been included in the groups dis- 
cussed above is alfalfa meal. OtKer miscellaneous feeds which have 
come into limited use in recent years and which rank as valuable 
feeds, though not so far sold in large (|uantities, are dricil buttermilk 
and velvet bean meal. Another feed which is interesting, particularly 
on account of its som-ce, is a product recovered after the polishing 
process in the manufacture of tin plate, which is known as palmo 
midds or palmo meal, according to tne mgredients used. 

Among the numerous miscellaneous commodities which are used 
as feeds or ingredients in feed mixtures the following may be men- 
tioned as illustrating som'ces of supply. Some of these are perhaps 
hardly to be considered seriously as commercial products but rather 
as possibilities in the line of feeds. At any rate the mere fact that 
some of these articles are suggested as useful for stock feeding is 
significant of tiie extent to which the conservation movement has 
been carried in this line. The following is a partial list of minor 
feedings tuf is : (^lover meal, cocoa shells, cull beans, ivory nut turnings, 
shea nut meal and morah nut meal, tomato seed waste, vegetable meal 
(dried ground garbage from which the oil has been removed)," 
and watermelon pulp. 

Alfalfa meal. — Ground alfalfa hay is called alfalfa meal. It 
varies in fineness from a product nearly as fine as corn meal to a 
coarsely chopped or shredded material, containing pieces half an 
inch in length. As a substitute for alfalfa hay it has the advantage 

" Bull, p. 230. 



PRODUCTION or PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 65 

of being easier to ship long distances and of somewhat less waste in 
feeding.'^ 

Henry and Morrison (17th ed.), give the average of 176 analyses 
of alfalfa meal, as showing, 14.3 per cent crude protein, 2 per cent 
fat, and 35.8 per cent nitrogen-free extract, of which 30.1 per cent 
is crude fiber. The average ash content is 9 per cent. 

The following statement of the qualities of alfalfa and alfalfa 
meal has been made by the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment 
Station: 

The fact should be borne in mind that alfalfa either in the form of meal or in the 
bale is simply an excellent kind of roiiijhage (a hay rich in protein) and does not 
compare either in digestibility or net available energy with the cereal grains.™ 

Production. — No statistics are available showing the exact annual 
production of alfalfa meal nor the amount used by the manufacturers 
of ready mixed feeds. Several of the largest producers and distrib- 
uters of the product, however, estimated that about 400,000 tons 
were produced in 1919, practically all of which was used by the 
manufactm'ers of ready-mixed feeds, particularly in molasses feeds. 

Velvet bean meal. — Velvet beans are regarded by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture as one of the most important crops of recent 
introduction and as a determining factor in developing the live- 
stock industry in the South. 

The velvet bean first came into notice as a forage and fertilizing 
crop about 1890, at which time it was grown almost exclusively in 
Florida. Later its culture was extended northward into Virginia 
and Tennessee. The area covered by the crop in 1917 was estimated 
at 5,000,000 acres. This product is of interest in this connection 
only as it figures as a commercial feed in the form of velvet bean 
meal. The following statement with reference to this feed is made 
by the Department of Agriculture.*' 

Velvet-bean meal is rapidly becoming a standard feed for live stock, and especially 
as the concentrated part of the many mixed feeds offered for sale on the market. 
In the manufacture of this meal the hard beans and tough pods are ground or, rather, 
crushed together by machinery especially designed for handling such material. No 
standard of fineness for grinding meal has been established, but up to a very recent 
period most of it was ground so as to pass through sieves having meshes one-fifth to 
five-eighths of an inch in size. The trade is now demanding a finer ground meal, and 
many mills are grinding it as fine as corn meal. This meal is prefen-ed for the manu- 
facture of mixed feeds. It is questionable whether it is necessary to grind the beans 
and pods when they are to be fed to cattle at home, as practically equal feeding re- 
sults will be obtained from the use of the unground pods. At most, cracking the 
beans is all that is required, as they absorb water very quickly when the seed coat 
is broken.' It is impossible to grind velvet beans finely unless they are well matured 
and thoroughly dry. On this account some mills kiln-dry all beans before grinding. 
This adds considerably to the cost of manufacture, but it is necessary early in the 
season in order to prevent the meal fi-om spoiling. 

Velvet beans may be ground alone or with other feeds, but when ^ound alone the 
meal should be fed in combination with other feeds. A common mixture is to grind 
velvet beans and corn in the shuck together. In accordance with the use to be made 
of the feed, velvet-bean meal is used in varying proportions in the manufacture of 
mixed feed. In horse feed itseldora forms more than 2.5 per cent of the entire mixture, 
while in mixed feeds for dairy cows it may run as high as 70 per cent. A popular 
mixed feed for dairy purposes is composed of 1.5 per cent cottonseed meal, 45 per cent 
corn-and-cob meal, and 40 per cent velvet-bean meal, while a popular horse feed 
contains in addition to the velvet-bean meal, corn, oats, and ground hay or straw. 

'« Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 229. 

" Massachusetts Agricxiltural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 11, Control Series, November, 1919, 
p. 23. 
91 U. S. Department ol Agriculture Farmers' Bulletin No. 962, pp. 3 and 28. 

42976°— 21 -5 



66 COMMKKCIAL FEKDS. 

Dried BUTTERjnLK. — A comparatively new and not very widely 
used feed is dried buttermilk, which is manufactured by only a 
few concerns. Dried or evaporated buttermilk is used both as a 
human food and as a feed for animals. The product which is used 
as an animal feed is made by the hot-roll process, by which the 
buttermilk is dried by means of hot rolls and heated metallic plates, 
after which it is ground. The product for human use is ground 
finer and then bolted. 

One manufacturer of dried buttermilk gives the average analysis 
as follows: Crude protein, 25 per cent; crude fat, 7 per cent; nitrogen- 
free extract, 25 per cent; fiber, none. 

It is used largely in hog feeds and lajong mashes for hens, but 
some is disposed of for crate fattening of chickens. 

Semisoud BUTTERinLK. — Another form in which buttermilk is 
sold for feeding purposes is in a semisolid condition. It is shipped 
in barrels. This product has apparently only recently come on the 
market and the quantity sold is comparatively small. 

Palmo midds and palmo meal. — In the manufacture of tin 
plate the metal sheets pass through a palm-oil bath. The plate 
covered with this oil coating then passes between rollers covered 
with sheepskin, and as the tinned plate emerges it is showered with 
fine-ground wheat middlings or peanut hulls, in order to absorb the 
oil and polish the plate. After passing between rollers again it 
receives another shower of middlings or ground peanut hulls, until 
all the oil is absorbed. A process has been discovered by which this 
polishing material is freed from the particles of metal which it has 
taken up and is made fit for use as feed. This is done by passing it 
through an air blower, screening it, and passing it over a magnetic 
field, until all traces of the metal are removed. The company which 
handles this product states that it has been analyzed by many State 
chemists, who report that they have found no injurious matter after 
the reclaiming process. 

The reclaimed middlings are sold under the name of palmo midds, 
the guaranteed analysis being crude protein, 16 per cent; crude fat, 
7 per cent; crude fiber, 9 per cent. A recent analysis by the Indiana 
State chemist showed crude protein, 17.6 per cent; crude fat, 8.7 
per cent; and crude fiber, 7.7 per cent. The gi-ound peanut hulls 
are also reclaimed and put on the market as palmo meal, with a 
guaranteed analysis as follows: Protein, 7 to 10 per cent; fat, G to 
10 per cent; fiber, 30 to 55 per cent. 

It has been said that most of these reclaimed middlings and 

Ecanut shells are produced entirely by one concern. It was stated 
y an officer of this company that palmo meal is sold entirely to 
manufacturers of mixed feeds, while the reclaimed middlings are 
sold as straight feeds to brokers and others, and that not more than 
2 per cent goes into manufactured mixed feeds. It was also stated 
by the representative of this company that a veiy high grade of 
middlings is used in polishing tin plate, and that the reclaimed product 
is better for feeding purposes than the original middlings on account of 
the oil taken up in the polishing process. 

It will be noted that the palmo meal can-ies a hio;h percentage of 
fiber, owing to the character of the basic material, peanut shells. 
It should also be noted that peanut shells are conceded to have a 
very low feeding value, and if used in mixed feeds are classed as an 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 67 

adiilterant in several States. While this product goes almost exclu- 
sively into mixed feeds, it is so far of comparatively small impor- 
tance on account of the small quantity sold. 

The remaining miscellaneous feeding stuffs are not of sufficient 
importance to require special definition or description. 

Section 9. Proprietary or ready-mixed feeds. 

Introductory. — The commercial mixed feeds are generally 
divided into two groups, viz, the so-called sweet feeds, which contain 
molasses, and the dry feeds, which do not have inolasses as an 
ingredient. The trade recognizes the following seven distinct classes 
of ready-mixed feeds : 

1. Dairy feeds. 

2. Stock feeds. 

3. Horse and mule feeds. 

4. Hog feeds. 

5. Poultry feeds. 

6. Calf meals. 

7. Condimental stock remedies or tonics. 

Some of these classes may also be divided, as for example, under 
poultry feeds would be listed the scratch feeds, growing mashes, 
egg mashes, etc. 

Manufacturers frequently make the complete line of mixed feeds. 
This is advantageous, in that it enables them to supply mixed cars to 
customers who are unable to buy a carload of any one kind of feed. 
Other manufacturers specialize on one or a very few kinds of feeds, as 
cattle fatteners or hog feeds. Most manufacturers make several 
grades or qualities of each kind of feed they manufacture. Thus 
manufacturers producing dairy feeds usually make high, medium, and 
low protein content feeds. This enables them to meet the demands 
of all classes of purchasers. 

Mixed feeds are made for particular purposes, such as to produce 
milk, put on fat, or to promote the growth of animals, etc. 

A mixed feed may contain only two ingredients, as the corn and 
oats chops and the simple alfalfa molasses feeds, or as many as twenty 
or more ingredients, as do some calf meals. The number of ingre- 
dients in a feed depends upon the kind of feed to be made, the ideas 
of the manufacturer as to what formula should or can be used and to 
some extent upon the availability of the different ingredients. 

The kind or quantity of the several ingredients in a mixed feed is 
rarely uniform over a long period. (See Chap. IV, sec. 12.) A few 
manufacturers, however, have maintained constant formulas for long 
periods, but the percentages of ingredients of most mixed feeds vary 
considerably from time to time. This variation is due to several 
causes, as pointed out in Chapter IV, section 12. So great is this 
variability that any statement here of the ingi-edients in a dairy 
feed, for example, would be of little value. 

Different methods of manufacturing mixed feeds are employed. 
Some feeds are ground very finely, as hog feeds; others coarsely 
ground, as horse and mule feeds; and still others, as scratch feeds, are 
not ground at all but consist merely of a mixture of grains and seeds, 
and at times grit. 

Dairy feeds. — These feeds are frequently high in protein and low 
in fiber, although there are numerous low protein dairy feeds on the 



68 COMAIliRCIAL FEEDS. 

market. Dairy foods, however, usually contain some of the higher 
protein feedingstufl's, as oil meal, corn gluten food, or brewers' grains. 

Stock feeds. — Ready mixed stock feeds are used for all kinds of 
stock. They are usually lower in protein than the dairy feeds and fre- 
quently arc high in carbohydrates. They generally contain consid- 
erable percentages of ground or crushed grains, as corn, oats, and 
barley, and also very oiten contain oat feed and screenings. 

Horse and mule feeds. — The so-called sweet or molasses horse 
and mule feeds usually are mixtures of alfalfa, corn, oats, and molasses, 
with other ingredients occasionally included. There are also horse 
and mule feeds which do not contam molasses and resemble the stock 
feeds previously mentioned. These feeds, both sweet and dry, are 
lower m protein than most dairy feeds. 

Hog feeds. — The ready mixed hog feeds are usually fairly high in 
protein and fat and low in liber, the fiber content being much lower 
than that of most dairy feeds. Naturally such feeds contain the 
high protein feedingstufis, as tankage, fish ineal, and oil meal. Com, 
feed meal, wheat middlings, and alfalfa meal are also frequently used 
in hog feeds. 

Poultry feeds. — Some poultry feeds, as scratch feeds, are simply 
mixtures of cracked corn and whole grains, as oats, wheat, buck- 
wheat, Kafir, etc. Grit is frequently included in scratch feeds. 
The mashes are composed of ground material, as oil meal, corn 
meal, meat scraps, bran, middlings, fish meal, and numerous other 
ingredients. 

Calf meals. — These are usually high in protein and are designed 
to promote the growth of the young animal . They frequently con- 
tain many ingredients, some of which are never used in other kinds of 
animal feeds. . 

Condimental stock remedies or tonics. — The mixtures known 
as condimental stock remedies or tonics were not included in the in- 
vestigation, since they are not considered as feeds, being used merely 
as tonics or conditioners. They contain many different ingredients, 
some of the more common ones being anise, capsicum, fenugreek, gin- 
ger, and nux vomica.*- 

Methods of figuring costs of mixed feeds. — Many users of 
mixed feeds believe that such feeds are sold on the basis of the cost 
of the highest priced ingredient in the feed. Thus, if a ton of mixed 
feed contained, among other ingredients, oil meal costing $60 per 
ton and screenings at $20 per ton, the screenings would be charged 
for at the rate of the cost of the oil meal. 

This may be true in some instances, but in so far as the Commis- 
sion was able to ascertain, in figuring costs the ingredients in mixed 
feeds were reckoned at their cost, or market value, at the time of mix- 
ing according to their respective proportions. The following state- 
ment is made from the cost sheet of a mixed-feed manufacturer and 
shows the manner in which costs were figured for a dairy ration in 
May, 1920. The names of several of the commodities have been left 
out in order to avoid any possibility of identification. 

"2 The following ingredients were guaranteed to be present in a well-known stock and poultry condi- 
tioner: Juniper berries, black mustard, rosin, coriander seed, gentian, fenugreek, valerian, elecampane, 
blood root, mandrake, lobelia, poplar bark, ginger, licorice root, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, sodium 
carbonate.sulphur, iron sulphate, black antimony, potassium nitrate, alum, flaxseed meal .Unseed meal. 



PRODUCTION OF PRINCIPAL FEEDS. 



69 



Name of com- 
modity. 


Cost 

(market 
price) 

per ton 
day of 

mixing. 


Per cent 

tised 
per ton. 


Amount 
charged 
per ton. 


Name of com- 
modity. 


Cost 
(market 

price) 
per ton 

day of 
mixing. 


Per cent 

used 
per ton. 


Amoxmt 
charged 
per ton. 




$46.00 
68.00 
71.00 
56.00 
72.75 
77.00 
66.67 


17 
6 
24 
30 
5 
2 
7 


$7.82 
3.40 
17.04 
16.80 
3.6i 
1.54 
4.67 




$70.36 
12.00 


S 
1 
1 








.12 




Salt 


.09 




Bags, milling, and 










ean o ea .. 





























This feed sold for less than $80 per ton f. o. b. mill. 

The method of figuring costs just outlined is, according to the best 
information obtainable, quite general. In some instances it is varied 
by charging for the ingredients at the actual cost to the manufacturer 
and not at the market price. At times manufacturers who have 
made fortunate purchases have charged the ingredient into cost at 
a price above actual cost but below the market price on date of 
mi.xing, competition usually being the factor which decides the course 
taken. 

Factors considered in purchasing mixed feeds.— The ready 
mixed feeds are commonly purchased by brand. A few farmers buy 
such feeds because of the chemical analysis or list of ingredients. 
The recommendation of a neighbor also frequently influences the 
selection of a feed. Odor and appearance are also taken into account. 

The matter of price is a very important factor in the selection of a 
feed. Farmers do not always seek quality but will frequently pur- 
chase the lower grades of feeds because they are cheaper in terms of 
money. 

The extensive advertising campaigns conducted by most mixed- 
feed manufacturers undoubtedly influence the sale of these mixed 
feeds. 

Sectional demand for mixed feeds. — As previously stated, the 
mixed-feed business is growing rapidly. (Chap. II, sec. 1.) These 
feeds are used quite extensively in the New England and other Eastern 
States, where relatively little feed is produced. These States pur- 
chase lar^e quantities of the ready-mixed dairy and poultry feeds. 
The Southern States are large purchasers of ready-mixed feeds, par- 
ticularly horse and mule feeds and stock feeds. The prairie States 
do not use as much ready-mixed feeds as do other sections. How- 
ever, in recent years the use of this type of feeds in this section has 
increased very greatly, particularly the use of cattle fatteners. 

The total production of mLxed feeds could not be readily ascer- 
tained. No attempt has been made by any oi-ganization to secure 
this information, and after a preliminary survey of the industry the 
Commission concluded that the expense of gathering these figm-es 
would be entirely out of proportion to then- value. 



Chapter IV. 
THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 

Section 1. Introductory. 

The low-grade feedin^stuffs are generally known or classed as 
roughages. As previously stated, roughages may be loosely defined 
as "the coarser feedmgstuffs which are high in liber and supply a 
lower percentage of digestible matter," ' than the concentrates. 

Authorities are quite agreed regarding most of the feeds which 
should be classed as roughages. There are, however, a few feed- 
ingstuffs, such as screenings, which are usually called roughages and 
yet certain parcels of them are at times actually concentrates. A 
recent feedingstuffs law enacted by the State of New York includes 
dried beet pulp among the roughages, although many authorities on 
feedingstuffs regard this commodity as a concentrate. 

Roughages are used for different purposes. Frequently when it 
is desired simply to carry live stock tnrough the winter they are fed 
only roughages as a maintenance ration, .inimals not at work or 
those not expected to produce or to put on fat are as a rule fed rough- 
ages only. Roughages are, used as a source of carbohydrates in a 
ration, and since they are generally bulky they are used to lighten 
or give bulk to the feed, whether home or factory mixed. 

Feedingstuffs commonly classed as low grade. — The feed- 
ingstuffs most frequently classed as low grade, or as roughages, are 
some screenings, rice hulls, charred humus or peat, dried and ground 
hays and straws, oat feed, elevator sweepings or dust, oat hulls, 
sorghum bagasse, ground corncob, peanut hulls, cottonseed hulls, 
clipped oat by-product, ground cornstalks, barley hulls, flax feed 
or flax screenings, flax plant by-product, buckwheat hulls, and 
cocoa shells. - 

The question of the value of roughages as feedingstuffs is the one 
around which most agitation and discussion centers. The problem 
is complicated by lack of sufficient reliable data, such as reports of 
official feeding tests, concerning many of these feedingstuffs. An 
additional difficulty encountered is that there are on both sides of the 
question those who argue chiefly from selfish motives. This makes 
it exceedingly difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions about several 
of these products. 

It has been pointed out elsewhere that the Commission is not 
equipped to study the feedingstuffs problem from a chemical stand- 
point. In discussing the different low-grade feeds, or roughages, 
advantage has been taken of such scientific studies as the Commis- 
sion has Dcen able to secure. To these studies have been added the 
data developed by the Commission regarding the competitive features 
of the industry and certain detluctions made from a study of a large 

• Henry and Morrison, 17th od., p. 10. 

' In addition to most of the roughaKes enumerated the lists prepared by some authorities frequently 
contain the clause " Other materials o( a similar cliaracter." (New York State law.) 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 71 

mass of data of both a general and specific character, obtamed from 
interviews with representatives of all branches of the business. 

Section 2. Roughages not commercially important. 

Miscellaneous. — A number of the products given as roughages are 
not important enough commercially to require extended discussion. 
Ground cornstalks do not enter into commerce to any extent, al- 
though they are used as feed by some farmers producing them. 
Barley hulls are not unportant in the Eastern States, though they 
are used as an ingredient in some mixed feeds. It is understood that 
on the Pacific coast, where barley is used extensively as feed, the 
hulls are probably an important commodity. It has been pointed 
out elsewhere (Chap. I, sec. 1) that a study of conditions on the 
Pacific coast was not included in this investigation. 

Buckwheat hulls and cocoa shells have been used as feeds but are 
not important commercially. An official of a large buckwheat mill, 
reputed to be the largest buckwheat milling company in the world, 
stated that the great bulk of the buckwheat hulls produced by his 
company is sold to concerns which use them for packing purposes. 
A few years ago the hulls were either burned or given to farmers. 
This company has at times sold small quantities of ground buck- 
wheat hulls to feed manufacturers for use as an ingredient in mixed 
feeds, but the total quantity thus disposed of in any year has not 
exceeded 10 per cent of its output. 

Sorghum bagasse. — A product produced principally in the South, 
is a residue or pulp from the grinding or crushing of sorghum stalks 
for sirup with the addition of the ground leaves and tops, and known 
as sorghum bagasse or sorghum pulp meal. In appearance it is 
somewnat like brown alfalfa meal. It has not, evidently, been 
widely used commercially as a feed, although it was offered for sale 
as a "cheap filler" for mixed feeds in 1918. It has been used by at 
least one mixed-feed manufacturer as an ingredient in mixed feeds. 
It is interesting to note that this manufactm'cr is an opponent of 
many of the low-grade feeds in so far as they enter into commerce. 
He does not, however, defend sorghum bagasse, alleging that he uses 
it because competition with other manufacturers using low-grade 
products forces him to do so. 

Flax-plant by-product. — In the manufacture of rugs from 
flax there is produced a commodity known as flax-plant by-product. 
It is a fibrous material and is stated by many authorities to be low 
in feed value. The composition of this feedingstuff is approximately 
75 per cent stems, 15 per cent flaxpods, and 10 per cent flaxseeds. 
According to the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station ^ it is 
very dusty and disagreeable to handle. 

In 1912 this experiment station conducted a digestibility test of 
flax-plant by-product, the results being publisheS in a bulletin.* 
The composition of the feed used in the test was as follows : Protein, 
8.29 per cent; fat, 3.93 per cent; fiber, 35.63 per cent; and N. F. E., 
35.61 per cent.^ 

s Bulletin 16S, p. 5, July, 1912. 

< Bulletin 168, p. 11. 

^ A sample of flax-plant by-product secured by the Commission in June, 1920, was analyzed by the Bureau 
of Chemistry and showed the following composition: Protein, 8.06 per cent; fat, 2.22 per cent; fiber, 38.02 
per cent; and N. P. E., 33.6 per cent. 



72 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



The experts who made tliis test reached the following conclusions: 

Flax-plant by-product furnished on the average about tlu? same amount of digestible 
nutrients as timothy hay. It furnishes nearly twice as much dijjestible protein and 
fat as is furnished by timothy hay. Flax-plant by-product furnishes more digestible 
nutrients than corn fodder, but not as much as clover hay. (Md. Agr. Sta. Bui. 168, 
p. 11, July, 1912.) 

There are only a few concerns in the United States producing this 
product. Practically the entire production of flax-plant by-product 
is sold to mixed-feed manufacturers who use it as a filler in mixed 
feeds. 

Grodtsid peanut hulls." — Ground peanut hulls as such are sold 
to some extent to mixed-feed manufacturers. They are also used 
as an adulterant in peanut-oil meal and peanut-oil feeds. 

Authorities differ regarding the feed value of peanut hulls. The 
Texas Agricultural E.xperiment Station ' in connection with the 
results of feeding tests of peanut meal stated : 

Peanut meal having a larger quantity of hulls would have a con-espondingly lower 
digestibility and lower feeding value, si7ice the hulls have no value as a feed} 

This view, that peanut hulls have no value as a feed, is not general, 
but there are no authorities who claim more than a low feed value for 
this product. 

Hand-separated peanut hulls have a lower combined protein and 
fat content and a higher fiber content than commercial peanut hulls, 
due, probably, to small particles of peanut meats being present in 
the commercial hulls. 

The composition of commercial peanut hulls as compared with the 
average composition of hand-separated hulls (from Texas peanuts) 
is shown in tne following statement : " 





Number of 
samples. 


Protein. 


Ether 
extract. 


Crude 
fiber. 


N. F. E. 


Ash. 




"58 


Per cent. 
6.05 
6.76 


Per cent. 
2.83 
1.10 


Per cent. 
54.03 
60.83 


Per cent. 
15.60 
19.64 


Per cent. 
2 13.54 




4.19 







' Unknown. 

' The high ash content of the commercial hulls is due to dirt adhering to the hulls or with them. 

Flax feed or flax screenings. — Flax feed consists of flax 
screenings and is sometimes sold as a straight feed, but more often 
it is used as an ingredient in mixed feeds. It is a variable product, 
containing inferior flaxseed, weed seeds, stalks, leaves, pods, and 
other refuse from the flax plant. As in the case of other screenings, 
it is recommended that it be finely ground to destroy the viability of 
all weed seeds. Tliis product is sometimes sold under trade names 
such as "fla.x flakes," etc. It contains only half as much crude pro- 
tein as linseed meal and often has a decidealy bitter taste on account 
of the weed seeds present.'" 



• The outer husks or shells. 

' UuUetin 215, pp. 14 and 15. 

" Italics by tho Commission. 

» Tex. Art- Exp. Sta., nullctin 222, p. 11. 

" Henry and Morrison, 17th ed., p. 177. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 73 

According to the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station '' the 
chemical analysis of this product is as follows: Protein, 9.5 per cent; 
fat, 10.6 per cent; fiber, 14.3 per cent; and N. F. E., 48 per cent. 

Ground corncobs. — The use of ground corncobs as a feed is 
common with many farmers who grind the cob with the corn and feed 
it as a part of home-mixed rations. There are some concerns which 
grind corncobs and sell the ground product to mixed-feed manu- 
facturers, who use it as a filler in theu* mixtures. Commercially 
ground corncobs have the appearance of sawdust. The average 
analysis is as follows: Protein, 2 percent; fat, 0.4 per cent; fiber, 31.8 
per cent; and N. F. E., 54.3 per cent.*^ 

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station conducted several 
digestion tests with ground corncobs. Commenting on these tests 
the station states that '■'* — 

The corncobs do not contain any digestible protein, but the digestibility of the crude 
fiber and of the nitrogen-free extract compare favorably with the digestibility of hays 
and some other roughages. The feeding value of ground corncobs is apparently high 
for feed of tlus character, and compares favorably mfh prairie hay. The productive 
value seems to bo higher than that of some varieties of prairie hay . It apjjarently has 
a value of about 83 per cent of alfalfa hay, and 180 per cent of cottonseed hulls. It 
seems to be a better feed than has generally been supposed. 

Section 3. Grain screenings. 

It is in connection with the remaining products, generally classed 
as low grade, that the question of value becomes most complicated 
and the discussions and arguments extended and at times bitter. 
Most of these materials are by-products and are produced in large 
quantities and some of them in many sections of the country. 

The term "screenings" is used to denote a product which varies 
greatly in both chemical and physical composition. There is no 
grade or standard for screenings and they are always sold by sample 
and not under any guaranteed chemical analysis. This product 
varies so widely m composition that some parcels of screenings might, 
as previously stated, well be desimated as concentrates because of 
their high percentage of digestible matter. Such screenings are 
usually composed of small, broken, or immature kernels of grain, 
comparatively little of the chaff, sticks, straw, weed seeds, dirt, and 
other materials usually found in screenings. In his examination of 
wheat screenings Dr. J. K. Haywood, of the Bureau of Chemistry, 
United States Department of Agriculture, has found samples having 
a fiber content about as low and digestible matter about as high 
as is found in wheat bran. Such screenings obviously should not 
be classed as a roughage. The Commission secured a "running" 
sample of ground and bolted screenings from a mixed-feed manufac- 
turer as the product entered the mixing machine. This was analyzed 
by the Bureau of Chemistry and showed the following: Protem, 15.53 
percent; fat, 7.76 per cent; fiber, 10.8 per cent; and N. F. E., 49.61 
per cent. 

This analysis compares favorably with the average analysis of 7,742 
samples of wheat bran as shown by Henry and Morrison (17th ed., 

11 Bulletin 223, p. 89. 

12 Tex. .Vj;r. Exp. Sta. Bui. No. 245, p. 9. 
" Bulletin 245, pp. 13 and 14. 



74 COMMERCTAL FEEDS. 

p. 634), namely: Protein, IG per cent; fat, 4.4 per cent; fiber, 9.5 per 
cent; and N. F. E., 53.7 per cent. 

However, it must not be understood that the above statements and 
analysis apply to all sereeninj^^s or that the average run of screenings is 
equal to the sample from which the above analysis was made. There 
are large quantities of screenings sold each year which are very much 
inferior to the sample analyzed for the Commission. These inferior 
screenings are usually composed of chaff, stems, hulls, weed seeds, 
and a very small percentage of broken or immature grain kernels. 

The following statement shows the variations found in the chemical 
composition of grain screenings. The analyses were made by a 
private chemist for mixed-feed manufacturers and cover a sufficient 
number of samples to be fairly representative: 

Crude protein: Percent. 

High 16. 1 

Low 10. 3 

Crude fat: 

ffigh a. 7 

Low 2. 7 

Crude fiber: 

High 21.9 

Low 11.3 

Sources of screenings. — There are a few grain farmers in the 
United States who clean the grains they produce before ofTering them 
for sale. The screenings resulting from this cleaning are generally 
used by such f.armers as feed for their stock. The amount of grain 
thus cleaned by farmers is, however, small. 

Many of the country elevators are equipped with grain-cleaning 
machinery. These elevators frequently clean much of the grain 

Eurchased by them and either return the screenings to the farmer to 
e used as feed, retain them for sale, usually at a terminal market, or 
in a few instances destroy the screenings as being of little value or 
because of the presence of a considerable percentage of noxious weed 
seeds. 

The bulk of the country's grain, however, reaches the terminal 
markets or the consuming converter, such as flour mills, uncleaned. 
The elevators and converters at these terminal markets are, as a rule, 
equipped with elaborate machinery for cleaning all kinds of grain. 
It is here that tlie bulk of the screenings are produced. The grain 
elevators sell the screenings by sample, frequently on the trading 
floors of the grain exchanges. Flour mills usually dispose of their 
screenings by adding them to the flour offal. If the amount of screen- 
ings thus added does not exceed the amount present in the lot or 
parcel of wheat from which the offal was produced, the mixture is 
labeled as containing screenings "not to exceed mill run." If more 
than the mill run of screenings is used, the label must state the name 
of the offal, as "bran and screenings." 

In addition to the screenings olitained in this country, feed manu- 
facturers use large quantities of Canadian screenings. 

Separation of screenings. — At several of the larger terminal 
grain markets are firms specializing ingrain screenings. Some of these 
concerns operate elevators at whicli tlie screenings are separated. 

A car of screenings is put througli several processes at a screenings 
elevator. The wheat kernels — sound, broken shriveled, etc. — are 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 



75 



removed. The remainder is also divided by cleaning machines 
into different lots. Thus, at a large elevator of this type at Minne- 
apolis, screenings were separated into the following: Shrunken or 
broken wheat, wild oats, wild mustard, wild buckwheat, weed seeds, 
and chaff. 

These different materials are then disposed of in various ways. 
The mustard seed, for example, is sold to crushers for its oil content; 
the chafl", weed seeds, and wild buckwheat are frequently ground, 
bolted, and then sold to feed manufacturers. The shrunken and 
broken wheat is usually sold for chicken feed, mixed-feed manu- 
facturers using large cjuantities in their poultry feeds. 

There are, however, large quantities of unseparated screenings 
purchased by mixed-JFeed manufacturers. Most of these manu- 
facturers are so equipped that they can either make the separations 
and grind the weed seeds, or they can grind the entire product. Com- 
paratively few manufacturers of mixed feeds use imground screenings 
except in poultry feeds. 

Principal uses of screenings. — The two principal classes of 
consuming purchasers of screenings are mixed-feed manufacturers 
and stock feeders, the former being by far the more important. 
Stock feeders do not buy the poorer grades of screenings. 

The percentage of screenings used in mixed feeds varies with 
different companies. They are frequently the base for many feeds; 
in others they are used only in small quantities. An important 
manufacturer of mixed feeds during the year ended April 30, 1919, 
used approximately 98,000,000 pounds of different materials in his 
mixed feeds, of which about 49,000,000 pounds were screenings. In 
fact, this manufacturer has built up his business almost entu'ely on 
feeds in which grain screenings are the most important single ingre- 
dient quantitatively. The following statement shows the amounts of 
materials used by this concern during the years 1917-1919, inclusive, 
together with the amounts of screenings and the percentage of the 
screenings to the total amounts of materials: 



Year. 


Screenings. 


Total 
materials. 


Per cent of 
screenings 

to total 
materials. 


1917 


Pounds. 
60, 300, 666 
66,675,157 
48,925,655 


Pounds. 
87,487,064 
110,032,426 
97,599,875 




1918 . . 




1919 








Total 


175,901,478 


295,119,365 









Viability of weed seeds. — One of the principal objections to 
the use of screenings as a feed which docs not apply to other feeds 
is that grain screenings usually contain more or less weed seeds. In 
some screenings weed seeds are present in large quantities. 

Considerable apprehension is felt by agricultural authorities con- 
cerning the spreading of weed seeds and the consequent contamina- 
tion of farms by the use of screenings. Many agricultural experi- 
ment stations have conducted experiments with weed seeds from 
screenings to test their viability, and the results have often showTi 
that screenings contain many weed seeds which germinate and 



76 OOMMKKCnAL FREDS 

grow rapidly- Laws have been passed by a number of States pro- 
hibiting the sale of mixed feeds if they contain weed seeds in excess 
of a stated amount — 2 per cent by weight in the case of Vermont." 

Some States, as South Carolina/'^ have refused to register feeds 
containing weed seeds even when ground. 

The bulk of the screenings sold direct to feeders go to hog and 
sheep raisers. The weed seeds contained in these screenings are 
unlikely to germinate, inasmuch as sheep and hogs grind very finely 
and assimilate such seeds, and their viability is thus destroyed. 
On the other hand, cattle and horses fed grain screenings containing 
weed seeds do not always destroy the growing properties of weed 
seeds entirely, as has been shown in numerous tests. However, 
the amount of screenings fed as such to cattle and horses is com- 
paratively small. 

One cause of complaint against mixed feeds originated in the 
fact that some of these feeds contained grain screenings in which 
weed seeds were present, and it was further asserted that the viability 
of these seeds had not been destroyed. This was undoubtedly true 
of many feeds, and the trouble was due to the faulty grinding and 
bolting of such seeds or to an utter lack of such treatment by some 
mixed-feed manufacturers. Other manufacturers are equipped with 
efficient machinery and can and do destroy all life in the weed seeds 
by grinding and boltino; and, in rare instances, by heating or cooking. 
Then, too, some of the larger dealers in screenings are equipped 
with facilities for devitalizing weed seeds, and many mixed-feed 
manufacturers buy their screenings from these dealers. 

The use of modern machinery has reduced the risk of contaminat- 
ing farms with weed seeds, as is attested by the following statement 
of the Massachusetts station: 

Formerly one objection to their use [molaases feeds containing screenings] was 
due to the fact that they contained many whole weed seeds which would pass through 
the animal without ha^^ng their \'itality impaired and become a source of weeds on 
the farm. With the improved process of manufacturing molasses feeds, the screen- 
ings are finely groimd and their germinating property destroyed.'" 

Harmful weed seeds in screenings. — Occasionally screenings 
contain weed seeds which are injurious to animals. This fact has 
been used as an argument against the use of screenings but has not 
been seriously considered by authorities. Rarely, if ever, are suffi- 
cient deleterious weed seeds present in a parcel of screenings to 
cause harm. It would seem, therefore, that this objection may be 
disregarded. 

. Illegal use of screenings. — It has been alleged that the use 
of screenings in mixed feeds makes deception easy on account of the 
many products generally present in the sci'eenings. Elevator dust 
or sweepings may be added to ground screenings without fear of 
detection, since the two are very similar. Other fibrous materials 
may also be used to adulterate screenings. It is not required that 
the names of the ingredients in the screenings be stated, and this 
makes it possible to practice deception. It would be impracticable, 

•< A provision, however, contained in the Vermont law reads "unless a statement of such use of wheat 
screenings or materials containing weed seeds is plainly marked or indicated upon the packages coutaining 
the same," etc. (Sec. 49S7 Public Statutes as amended.) 

" Annual Report S. C, 1916, p. 97. 

'« Mass. Bulletin 142 (1912), p. 46. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 77 

however, to compel such a declaration because of the wide and 
constant changes in the composition of screenings. 

Opinions of brokers as to the value of screenings. — Screen- 
ings from grains are handled largely by brokers, grain commission 
men, and jobbers. Many of them have only in recent years begun 
to buy and sell screenings as a side line to their regular business, 
usually grain. 

Only a few of these dealers in screenings that were interviewed 
by the Commission's agents had any knowledge of the feed value 
of screenings or had even seen analyses of them. Most of them 
condemned the use as feed of much of the material sold as screenings. 
Some of these dealers stated that they did not believe in the traffic 
but had bought and sold screenings because there was a market 
for them. It is evident that this impression was gained merely 
from the general appearance of the product and not from any actual 
data in regard to its chemical composition. The physical appear- 
ance of many lots of screenings is uninviting and conveys to the 
uninitiated an impression of worthlessness, which, however, is not 
always justified. 

Section 4, Elevator dust. 

A product resembling ground screenings in appearance, and almost 
as variable in its composition, is that known by some as elevator 
by-product, but more widely known as elevator dust or sweepings. 

In most of the large grain elevators and mills the dust from the 
grains is collected by suction as the grain is dumped into the ele- 
vator garners. Dust is also collected from the various cleaning and 
separating machines. It is then blown to a collector in the dust 
house. Formerly it was not saved but was blown into the air out- 
side of the elevator. Aside fromi this dust there is a constant accumu- 
lation of other dust about the mill or elevator, on floors, walls, and 
superstructure, which is also gathered and finally sold. This clean- 
ing of the mills and elevators is due to two reasons, (1) it is dangerous 
to allow the dust to accumulate because of its highly explosive and 
inflammable character; (2) the dust has a commercial value as an 
animal feed. 

Elevator dust is light and fluffy and uninviting in appearance. 
It is largely composed of j^rain dust, with an occasional kernel of 
grain and some light chaff and hulls. Since floor sweepings are 
included, it also contains a percentage of actual dirt. Dust from a 
flour mill is of much greater value than that collected at a grain 
elevator. The mill dust contains a small cjuantity of flour. The 
mills in most instances dispose of their dust by adding it to the 
feeds produced by them as by-products from the manufacture of 
flour. 

The feed value of elevator dust is by no means constant. A 
sample of this product obtained by the Commission was submitted 
to the Bureau of Chemistry for analysis with the following result: 
Protein, 1.5.12 per cent; fat, 2.63 per cent; fiber, 16.89 per cent; and 
N. F. E., 43.97 percent. 

The above analysis is not presented as the average for this product. 
It is merely given as the analysis of a sample from a lot or parcel 
of elevator dust about to be added to a mixed feed. It is not un- 



78 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

likely that some of the odium attached to the product is due to its 
name. 

Elevator dust is sold to mixed-feed manufacturers. Many of these 
manufacturers collect the dust from their own plants and add it to 
their feeds. A mixed-feed manufacturer making; feeds of very high 
reputation stated that he used elevator dust from his own plant as 
an ingredient in his feeds. 

While elevator dust is extensively used as an ingredient in mixed 
feeds its presence is rarely declared by manufacturers. This is, of 
course, misbranding, but since it is a very difficult matter to detect 
its presence, few if any penalties have been imposed. 

Section 5. Clipped-oat by-product. 

Clipped-oat by-product comes from grain elevators and oatmeal 
mills. It is produced by clipping oats to increase their weight per 
bushel, since heavy oats usually command a better price. By 
means of machines known as " oat clippers' ' the light ends and some 
of the hulls are broken off. By this process oats may be raised in 
weight from, say, 32 pounds per bushel to 38 pounds per bushel. 
The light ends, hulls, chaff, and other residue from the clipping 
process are collected, and it is this product which is known as clipped- 
oat by-product. 

This product is light, bulky, and of a chaffy and fibrous character. 
An analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry of a sample secured by the 
Commission was as follows: Protein, 7.28 per cent; fat, 1.90 per cent; 
fiber, 27.58 per cent; and N. F. E., 43.08 per cent. 

Large quantities of clipped-oat by-product are produced annually, 
and practically the entire output is used in mixed feeds. Because 
of its light, bulky character it serves to lighten a ration. It is 
used frequently in feeds containing molasses, as it is a good absorbent. 
Usually the product is ground and bolted before being added to 
feeds. It is one of the products the use of which as a feed is fre- 
quently criticized. 

Section 6. Eice hulls. 

The outer coating or hull of the rice grain is a tough, fibrous sub- 
stance. At intervals on the surface are minute spines, transparent, 
like glass, and composed of silica. The jagged edges of the hulls feel 
rough to the fingers. 

In the milling of rice for human consumption the hulls are removed 
from the rice grains. The cjuantity of hulls produced is enormous, 
and their disposal presents a serious problem to the rice millers. 
Rice hulls are used as fuel, for packing crockery, as a filtrant, in the 
manufacture of explosives, as an adulterant of rice bran, and as an 
ingredient in mixed feeds. It is with the last two uses that this 
investigation is concerned. 

Most authorities agree that rice hulls have a very low feed value 
and if fed in too largo quantities are injurious ancl may prove dis- 
astrous to the animal. 

The general belief that rice hulls are injurious to animals has led 
to the prohibition of their sale as feeds in a number of States. Several 
States, as Texas and California, permit the use of this material 
provided the tags and labels show the actual percentage of hulls 



THE LOW-GKADE FEEDS. 79 

present. The Texas officials hold that ground rice hulls in small 
quantities have not been proved to be deleterious, and therefore their 
sale in that State has not been prohibited. The Texas Agricultural 
Experiment Station " states that the results of a digestion experi- 
ment with two sheep showed that " the feeding value of rice hulls 
is very low, being about 48 per cent of cottonseed hulls and 23 per 
cent of alfalfa." The average analyses of 14 samples of rice hulls 
by the Texas station showed: Protein, 3.56 per cent; fat, 0.93 per 
cent; fiber, 39.05 per cent; N. F. E., 29.38 per cent; and ash, 18.59 
per cent. Dr. Dalri^Tnplc, of the Louisiana State Agriculture College, 
says that he would not recommend any proportion whatever in a 
feed, since it would have about the same effect as feeding the animal 
so much ground glass. 

Rice bran contains a small amoimt of rice hulls and its sale is 
permitted in most States. While the addition of hulls to the bran 
improves its keeping qualities and thus affords some pretext for 
adding hulls, it has also led to adulteration. If, however, rice bran 
contains an undue amount of fiber (more than 13 per cent) it is an 
indication that the bran has been adulterated. The fiber content 
is thus used as an index of the quality of the bran. 

Aside from the feeds sold in Texas and California, rice hulls do 
not appear to be extensively used in animal feeds. The formulas of 
two mixed feeds manufactured in Texas showed that each of them 
contained slightly over 700 pounds of rice hulls in each ton of feed. 

Prior to 1914 large quantities of ground rice hulls were exported to 
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Cuba, and Belgium. It is stated that 
these hulls were to be used as feeds. This export trade wholly 
ceased dining the war and has not been resumed. 

According to most authorities rice hulls are the one product com- 
monly classed as a roughage that is possibly injurious to animals. 

Section 7. Peat. 

According to Webster's New International Dictionary (Merriam), 
1920, peat is " a carbonaceous substance formed by partial decompo- 
sition in water of various plants, especially mosses of the genus 
Sphagnum." 

This substance is the same as that used for fuel with the excep- 
tion that for feeding purposes the peat is not in such an advanced 
state of decomposition as that used for fuel. Before being used as 
a feed it is prepared by drying and charring. The composition of a 
sample of peat analyzed by the Texas Agricultural Experiment 
Station^* was as follows: Protein, 17.12 per cent; ether extract, 
0.83 per cent; crude fiber, 10.01 per cent; N. F. E., 34.9 per cent; and 
ash, 27.05 per cent. 

Peat has been used abroad as an animal feed for a good many 
years. It is comparatively recently, however, that peat has been 
used as a feed in this country, and most authorities do not look with 
favor upon its use in a ration. 

There are few tests of the feed value of peat. The peat for wliich 
the above analysis is given was used by the Texas authorities in a 

" Bulletin 245, p. 15. 
i8BulIetin203, p. 8. 



80 COMMERCIAL FKEDS. 

digestion experiment. The experts who made the test stated the 
following conclusions : 

This peat was furnished by Ihe Weidmer Chemical Co., of St. Louis, and is a natural 
deposit which is dried and heated to a comparatively high temperature. The manu- 
facturers do not claim a feeding value for this material, but claim that it aits as an 
absorbent to take up or counterac t the bad effects of molaisses or sweetened animal 
food. The material was labeled "humus for fertilizer and stock food." It had the 
appearance somewhat of finely ground charcoal, except that it contained some finely 
divided brown to gray material. 

The digestion experiment showed that this material was not only not digested but 
that it apparently decreased the digestibility of the alfalfa hay with which it was fed." 

Bull ^" states that "Peat has a nutritive value about half that of 
straw." 

On the other hand, some cattle feeders assert that a small amount 
of charred peat is beneficial in that it aids digestion. Many feeders 
allow their cattle access to charred peat at all times in the same 
manner as salt is kept available. The manufacturers using peat as 
an ingredient in their mixed feeds assert that it serves a very useful 
purpose in counteracting the acidity of the molasses with which it is 
almost always used. Manufacturers using this product allege that 
if the use of peat as a feed is prohibited the prices of their feeds 
would increase, as they maintain they would be obliged to use char- 
coal, which is more costly. Another reason for its use is that it is 
said to be a good absorbent for molasses. 

The fact that much peat comes from the sphagnum moss plant ac- 
counts for the occasional appearance of the name "sphagnum moss" 
in the lists of roughages or low-grade feeds, microscopists commonly 
identifying peat as sphagnum moss. The sphagnum moss plant is 
not, according to the best information available, used in feeds until 
it has changed to peat. 

Section 8. Cottonseed hulls. 

Cottonseed hulls are produced in the process of extraction of oil 
from the cotton seed when the kernels and hulls are separated. Such 
hulls contain numerous small particles of the kernels and some small 
or immature seeds. The hulls are thick, black, and hard, and are 
high in fiber content. It is undoubtedly true that much of the pro- 
tem and fat in a parcel of hulls is supplied by the small particles of 
kernels or meats and the small entire seeds. 

Henry and Morrison ^' give the following as the average percentage 
composition of cottonseed hulls as determined by 66 analyses: 
Protein, 4.6 per cent; fat, 1.9 per cent; fiber, 43.8 per cent; and N. F. 
E., 37.3 per cent. 

The principal tiscs of cottonseed hulls as feeds arc, to make cotton- 
seed feed, to "adulterate" cottonseed meal, as a roughage, and as a 
filler in mixed feeds. 

Cottonseed feed, as defined by the Association of Feed Control 
Officials of the United States, is a mixture of cottonseed meal and 
cottonseed hulls containing less than 36 per cent of protein (see 
Appendix 2) . Inasmuch as there is no provision regulating the mini- 
mum amount of protein, cottonseed feed varies widely in its composi- 
tion. Henry and Morrison ■' give the following as the average per- 

» Bulletin 203, p. 15. 

«» Principles of Feeding Farm Animals (1916), p. 300. 

n 17th ed., p. 635. 



THE LOW-GKADE FEEDS. 81 

centage composition of cottonseed feed, as determined by 406 analy- 
ses: Protein, 24.5 per cent; fat, 6.3 per cent; fiber, 21.4 per cent; and 
N. F. E., 34.6 per cent. 

The use of tlie hulls as an adulterant in cottonseed meal is a source 
of much trouble to State and Federal feed-control officials. It is 
alleged that the cottonseed crushers frequently add a quantity of 
hulls to the meal in order to dispose of the hulls. Many of the 
crushers maintain that they return to the meal only the proportion 
of hulls foinid m the uncrushed seed. Other crushers allege that the 
hulls are added because farmers do not demand high-grade meals. 
Moreover many mixed-feed manufacturers prefer to purchase the 
lower protein content meals. This practice of adding hulls to cotton- 
seed meal is not confined to the oil crushers. Many of the larger 
dealers of the Southern States handling cottonseed meal buy cotton- 
seed hulls, grind them, and add them to their meal, and thus reduce 
the protein content to any point they desire. (See also Ch. Ill, 
sec. 5.) This adding of hulls, of course, reduces the protein and fat 
content and increases the amoiuit of fiber in the meal. 

In Southern States cottonseed hulls are used extensively as a 
roughage for stock, and in fact are highly regarded in that region for 
this purpose. Many feeders buy the straight hulls from the oil 
crushers, and when delivering seed to the crushers many cotton 
growers demand the return of the hulls and use them for feed. 

Cottonseed hulls are used as a filler or ingredient in some mixed 
feeds. While it has been frequently asserted by some mixed-feed 
manufacturers that much of the cottonseed meal on the market con- 
tains unduly large percentages of cottonseed hulls, some mixed- 
feed manufacturers evidently do not find the "adulteration" suffi- 
cient. Several State bulletins show the liberal use of straight cotton- 
seed hulls as an ingredient in mixed feeds which also contain cotton- 
seed meal. 

Section 9. Oat feed and oat hulls. 

Introductory. — In the manufacture of oatmeal and other break- 
fast foods from oats there are produced tliree by-products — oat hulls, 
oat shorts, and oat middlings. According to the definitions of 
feeding stuffs adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials of 
the United States these three products are defuied as follows: 

Out hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the oat grain. 

Oat middlings are the floury portions of the oat groat obtained in the milUng of 
rolled oats. 

Oat shorts are the covering of the oat grain lying immediately inside the hull, being 
a fuzzy material carrying with it considerable portions of the fine floiu-y part of the 
groat obtained in the milling of rolled oats. 

In the manufactiu-e of oatmeal the oats, after being cleaned and 
heated, are sent to the hulling stones, which consist of two circular 
emery stones parallel to each other, the top one revolving and 
the bottom stationary. These stones remove the hulls and also 
grmd off some of the finer particles from the oat groat. From the 
hullmg stones the entire mass goes to the bolting reels, where the 
finer particles removed by the hulling stones are separated fropa the 
groats and coarse hulls. 

42070°— 21 6 



82 COMMERCIAl, FEEDS. 

This finer material is tlicn conveyed directly to a feed house and 
binned. The groats and coarse hulls go to aspu-ators or air machines 
which separate tlic coarse hulls from the groats. The coarse hulls 
arc then sent to the feed house, where they are ground and then mixed 
with the fuier material which has previously oeen conveyed to the 
feed house. 

Inasmuch as the shorts and middlings have a higher feed value and 
consequently a higher commercial value than the bare hulls, some 
oatmeal millers occasionally do not mix the finer particles with the 
ground hulls, but bin them separately and dispose of them as separate 
products. Other millers assert that they never dispose of these 
products separately. They maintain that the oat hulls and the 
finer particles are Brought together in the feed house in exactly the 
same proportions as they existed in the original oats. The reason 
assigned ijy millers for mailing the temporary separation is that it 
permits them to grind more economically. 

These three by-products are generally mixed together by the pro- 
ducers. Some oat shorts and oat middlings are sold as sucn, but the 
quantity is relatively small. 

The combined by-products are now commonly called oat feed, 
largely because a Federal court decision held that this term was 
permissible in connection with the total by-product of oatmeal 
milling. -'° However, this name is not always used in referring to 
this commodity. A number of the producers and a few others fre- 
quently refer to it as " oatmeal mill by-product." Those who oppose 
tne use of this commodity call it oat hulls, a name which carries 
with it a suggestion of worthlessness. But this latter term is used 
even by a few producers. 

In this report when referring to the combined by-product from the 
manufacture of oatmeal the term oat feed is used. Feed-control 
officials in general recognize oat feed as describing the combined by- 
product from oatmeal milling. The term oat hulls, according to 
these officials, should not be applied to the combined by-product, 
since they recognize it as descriptive of the oat hulls without the 
shorts and middlings. 

It should be pointed out that these three terms — oat huUs, oatmeal 
mill by-product, and oat feed are very often loosely used as applying 
to the combined by-product from oatmeal milling. 

If cither of the names oat feed or oatmeal mill by-product is used 
in describing the combined by-product of the oatmeal mills when 
offered for sale, feed-control officials generally require that the tags 
or labels shall bear the descriptive phrase "oat hulls, oat shorts, 
and oat middlings" inunediately following the name used. 
' Oat hulls. — The quantity of oat hulls sold in the United States 
is small as compared with oat feed. Oat hulls do not contain the 
shorts and middlings except the slight (piantity which can not be 
economically separated. Oat bulls are lower in feed value than oat 
feed because of this separation. Since oat hulls proper are relatively 
unimportant as a commercial feedingstufi, the discussion of the by- 

Froducts of oatmeal milling has been largely confined to oat feed, 
t will be noted in the following discussion tliat the terms have not 
been used interchangeably, but to denote difl'erent commodities. 



"In Notice of Judgment No. 990, issued Aug. 15, 1911, by the Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Department 
of Agriculture. 



THE LOW-GKADE FEEDS. 



83 



Oat feed. — A great many analyses have been made of oat feed. 
The following table presents the results of a few of these analyses, 
which are fairly typical of all : 

Table 15. — Results of cheviiral analyses of oat feed by various chemists. 



Analyst. 


Numbcr of 
analyses. 


Protein. 


Fat. 


Fiber. 


N.F.E. 




16 

7 
46 

4 
6 


Per cent. 
4.0 
5.2 
5.2 

4.6 
5.7 


Per cent. 
1.7 
2.3 
1.8 

1.7 
2.0 


Per cent. 
29.2 
29.5 
30.8 

27.8 
<34.6 


Per cent. 










New York Agricultural Experiment Sta- 













1 17th cd., p. 634. Described as oat hulls. 
" Akron, Ohio, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, plants, 
s New York Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 455, p. 123, December, 191S. 

< The high average fiber content is due to the e.\cessivo fiber content of two of the samples, viz, 43.6 per 
cent and 43.44 per cent, which were probably oat hulls. 

The analyses in the above table wliich show the highest average 
fiber content were made for a mixed-feed manufacturer who had 
started to use the product as an ingredient in one of his mixed feeds. 
The results of these analyses were so unsatisfactory that the manu- 
facturer discontinued the use of the product as an ingredient in his 
feed. In fact, this manufacturer believed that some producers of oat 
feed from whom he had secured his supply had saved out the shorts 
and middlings and sold him only the hulls. A further reason ad- 
vanced by this manufacturer for not using the product was that it 
was produced by competitive mixed-feed manufacturers and that he did 
not care to run the risk of playing into the hands of his competitors. 

It is claimed that heating the oats before they are hulled adds to 
the digestibility of the fiber in the oat hulls. Efforts are being made 
to increase the digestibility, which is now, according to Henry and 
Morrison." about 60 per cent. Much of the feed value of oat feed 
depends upon the efficiency of the milling process, and this causes a 
marked difference in the composition of oat feed produced by the 
various concerns. From a miller's standpoint the more efficient the 
milling the lower the quality of the by-product. 

Feed value of oat feed. — The value of oat feed as a foedingstuff is a 
very much disputed question. There arc very few, if any, scientific 
data on the subject. There has been but one series of feeding tests 
made officially in recent years with this product. This series con- 
sisted of a maintenance test with three animals and a digestion test 
with one made by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station 
in 1912."" The results of these tests and the reasons for their being 
made are very interesting. A mixed-feed concern desired to have 
public tests made of oat hulls in order to have authentic data to use 
in decrying the value of this product as a feed. Because of lack of 
funds for making the tests the experiment station could not purchase 
the oat hulls and the manufacturer desiring the tests made, supplied 
them. The experiment station authorities, however, insisted that 
no matter what the results of the tests might be, they were to be per- 

>= 17th ed., p. W7. 

"a At the tune of these tests the product now known as oat feed was commonly called oat hulls. 



84 COMMERCIAL FKF.nS. 

mittcd to make thein public. H. J. Patterson , of the Maryland Exper- 
iment Station, stated that in all tests made by the institution the 
right is always reserved to state whatever the experiments may dis- 
close. In the experiments with the oat hulls the men who made them 
did not know where the oat hulls came from or whether the institu- 
tion paid for them or not. Every precaution was taken by Dr. Pat- 
terson that the tests be made with the usual care exercised in such 
matters. 

The results of the tests made of the car of oat hulls were published 
in a bulletin." According to this bulletin the oat hulls used in the 
test "appeared to be li^ht in weight, of good color, and extremely 
dusty." There were also considerable oat germs present. The 
analysis of this lot of oat hulls showed (p. 2G) : 

Amilyifis ii.i siimplril.'' 

Per cent. 

Moisture 8. 220 

Ash 6. 300 

Protein 4. 318 

Fat or ether extract 3. 040 

Cnide fiber 28. 750 

Other carhohydrates 49. 372 

In the first test of the oat hulls three animals were used — a young 
pig, a mature mule, and a mature Jersey bull. This was purely a 
maintenance test. 

The pig was fed on oat hulls for 41 days and at the end of that 
period had lost 21 pounds, or a loss of 28 per cent. Commenting on 
this test the bulletin says (p. 23) : 

It ■will be seen, however, that the excessive loss was partially due to the limited 
amount consumed and not entirely to the poor food A'ahie in itself. At the end of 
the period, however, the pig was very weak and would probably have died in a short 
time on this exclusive diet. 

The mule was fed for 41 days and aside from the oat hulls received 
hay as a part of the ration. According to tlie bulletin (p. 24) : 

In this test it wotild seem that with hay the oat hulls would have supported the 
animal fairly well at light work. The general condition of the mule was good through- 
out the entire period. 

The comment regarding tlie test with the bull was as follows 
(p. 25) : 

At the end of the 41 days' period the bull had gained 2!) pounds in weight. During 
the first nine days, however, ho received hay in adtUtion to oat hulls, and when hay 
was discontinued he had up to tliis lost apparently 15 poimds. This was an error, 
probalily due to his ha\-ing been watered shortly before the initial weighing. For 
the remainder of the time he gradually improved on an exclusive oat hull diet, and 
at the end of the period was in excellent condition in every respect. 

It has been asserted that the results of the above series of tests 
were so satisfactory that the manufacturer instituting them was 
unable to use the data to decry his competitors' feeds. 

Oatmeal millers and mixed-feed manufacturers who use oat feed 
in their feeds, commenting on these tests, stated that in their opinion 
the pig would have done much better had the oat hulls been finely 
ground. 

» Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Bui. 168, July, 1912. 
«Cf. analyses p. S3. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 85 

Immediately after the maintenance test with the bull was finished 
a digestion test with the exclusive oat hull diet was carried on for a 
period of 16 days. Commenting on the results of this digestion test 
the station -^ states: 

It was determined, therefore, that this luill kept in condition and gained slightly 
in weight on a ration consisting of: 
9.17 pounds dry matter. 

.21 pound digestible protein. 
4.32 pounds digestilile carbohydrates. 
.23 pound fats. 
Having a nutritive ratio of 1 : 22 : (i. 

Approximately 170,000 tons of oat feed were produced in 1919. 
(See Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) A comparatively small percentage of the 
total production is sold to feeders to be used as a part of a home- 
mixed ration ; the balance is used by mixed-feed manufacturers as 
an ingredient in their feeds. It is the common practice to grind it 
to the desired degree of fineness before mixing.^" Oat feed is used 
for its carbohydrate content and to give bulk, or to lighten a ration. 

The following summary of statements of three Illinois feeders who 
jointly purchased a car of oat feed is of interest. The car of oat feed 
was purchased through a local dealer at -127 per ton, in sacks. 

The first feeder interviewed usually mixed and fed the following 
ration : 

100 pounds corn ground \rith the cob. 

100 pounds bran. 

100 poimds ground oats and barley. • 

Six of his best cows were selected and fed this mixture for one 
week. The milk and feed for each cow were carefully weighed during 
the test. 

Tlu-ee days after the above test was made, and after all the above 
mixture was out of the cows' systems, he substituted 100 pounds of 
oat feed for the 100 pounds of bran and a similar test was made, 
covering one week. The new mixture was somewhat more bulky 
because of the lightness of the oat feed. 

A comparison of the results of the two tests showed that as good a 
flow of milk had been obtained from the mi.xture containing oat feed 
as from the other, in fact the feeder stated that the tests showed that 
2 pounds more of milk were produced during the week when the oat 
feed was used. The milk was not tested during either period so it 
is not known whether there was a difference in the quality. 

The saving per ton of feed to the feeder by using oat feed in place 
of bran was quite marked. He had paid $43 per ton for one parcel 
of bran and $47 per ton for another lot, while the oat feed had cost 
but .127 per ton. 

Notwithstanding the apparently good results obtained this feeder 
(lid not believe he would advocate the use of oat feed. He also 
doubted if he would ever use it again and stated he certainly would 
not at a price higher than that which he had paid, namely, $27 per 
ton. He believed the product contained only hulls and mill sweep- 
ings and that the best part of the oat had been removed, but at the 
price he paid the product was worth the money. According to his 

=■■ Bulletin 16X, p. 27. 

" The grinding depends upon the character of feed in which the oat feed is to be used. Thus, for hog 
feed the product is ground more finely than for a horse teed. 



86 (lOMMKRCIAI. FEEDS. 

belief oat feed was valuable principally as a filler when heavy feeds 
were used. He believed it to be as good as his average timothy hay. 

Just why this feeder would not use the pj-oduct again is not clear, 
nor was he positive on the point. He stated that his cows would 
not eat oat feed when fed alone and that the product was so light that 
it would blow and scatter all over his farm. It is not improbable 
that the local cow testing ofTicial had had some effect on this feeder's 
judgment, since this official, who was also interviewed, was very 
much opposed to low-grade feeds in general and advised feeders, 
including the one interviewed, not to use them. 

A second feeder taking a part of the same car of oat feed, also used 
the product as a substitute for bran or middlings to lighten his feed. 
While he did not know but that the mixture contaniing oat feed 
would produce as much milk as the one in which bran or middlings 
were used, he stated that he would never buy oat feed again. He 
did not believe that the oat feed could be as beneficial to the cow as 
bran. His cows, too, would not eat the oat feed alone, although they 
would eat the bran when it was fed alone. 

The farmer who had persuaded the two feeders just mentioned to 
join him in purchasing tne car of oat feed, stated that in his opinion 
oat feed had proved to be just as satisfactory as bran. This feeder 
did not base his opinion on the one test but had used oat feed in the 
spring of 1919 as well as in the wnter of 1919-20. Not only was the 
milk flow as large as when bran was used, but from the appearance 
of the CQws they were in as good condition. Furthermore, this 
feeder estimated that by using oat feed a saving of $20 per ton had 
been effected. 

When asked why the other feeders interviewed had discontinued 
using oat feed the third feeder stated that many people were preju- 
diced against oat feed and that even a careful test showing good 
results would not convince them that the product had value. 

An analysis of oat feed used by these three feeders is not available. 
Below is given the analysis of a sample of the same brand of oat feed 
as was used by these tm-ee feeders as determined by a state experi- 
ment station: Protein, 5 percent; fat, 2 per cent; fiber, 28 per cent. 

Another Illinois feeder who had tried 2 tons of oat feed stated 
that he could not be induced to use it again at any price. He called 
it a worthless product. However, this feeder used considerable 
quantities of a ready-mixed feed (about two carloads per year) 
which contained on an average over 25 per cent of oat feed and he 
believed it to have been "worth the money." 

Manufacturers of mixed feeds containing oat feed claim that in 
making their feeds the properties and values of the oat feed are 
recognized and properly useci in their mixed feeds. They supply the 
carbohydrates and lighten the rations in which they are used. 

The percentage of oat feed used by manufacturers in their mixed 
feeds differs with the various feeds. It is, however, used in a more 
constant quantity in these mixtures than most of the other ingre- 
dients and is varied only when absolutely necessary since it is the 
product used as the base, or filler, in most of the mixtures in which 
it is found. It is for this reason that the manufacturer varies the 
proportion of the other ingredients rather than the amount of oat 
leea. However, changes in the percentage of oat feed in mixtures 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 87 

are frequently necessary. Oat feed is present in some feeds in as 
small an amount as 5 per cent and in others in an amount as high as 
28 per cent. In one mstance, at least, as high as 40 per cent was 
used in a dairy feed for a short time and then the amount was reduced 
to the usual percentage, about 25 per cent. 

Illegal use of oat hulls and oat feed. — Oat hulls and oat feed 
are at times used as adulterants. They become adulterants, for 
example, when the mixture is said to contain crushed oats when as 
a matter of fact only the hulls or oat feed is present. It is also an 
easy matter, in so far as detection is concerned, to omit these products 
from the statement of ingredients of a feed which contams both 
crushed oats and oat hulls or oat feed, provided the quantity is not 
unduly excessive. Since it is difficult and frequently impossible to 
determine the fact that a feed is adulterated with oat hulls or oat 
feed, the extent to which this practice exists can not be stated, 
though it is probable that most manufacturers do not follow it. 

The difficulty of detecting this form of adulteration is illustrated 
by the case of a manufacturer who through an error in his registra- 
tion of a feed for sale in Texas declared only one-half the quantity of 
oat feed actually present in the feed. This feed was shipped into 
Texas for a year under this erroneous registration, and although 
inspected and analyzed, the presence of the excess of oat feed was 
evidently not detected, since the manufacturer was not penalized. 

Critics and defenders of oat feed are found among all branches of 
the business. The criticisms range from the unsupported assertions 
that it is a worthless product, to the carefully guarded statements 
of scientific men that oat feed is of value if sold at a proper price. 
Those wHo defend the product do not contend that it is unequalled as 
a feed or that it is a fully efficient feed of itself, but rather that it is a 
valuable commodity especially as a source of carbohydrates, and as 
such serves a useful purpose and has been grossly maligned. 

Section 10. Controversy over use of oat feed. 

Criticisms of oat feed. — The feeling against oat feed is often 
expressed in very bitter terms. Manufacturers of feeds that do not 
contain this product frequently refer to it as "junk," "trash," 
"worthless," or "adulterant." Many feed manufacturers advertise 
that their feeds do not contain "cheap fillers (roughage), such as oat 
hulls, ground screenings, etc." One manufacturer stated in an 
advertisement: 

We do not buy nor use any oat hulls, cottonseed hulls, rice hulls, or other low-grade 
feeding materials of any description. 

It is interesting to note that this manufacturer used as an ingredient 
in a mixed feed unhulled peanut meal which contained peanut shells, 
a product admittedly much inferior to oat feed. 

Feeders frequently voiced their opinions of oat feed in strong 
terms, similar to the above. Agricultural college authorities, feed 
control officials, and representatives of the Bureau of Chemistry, 
were not as a rule as outspoken. Men of this last group more often 
called it a "cheap"-' or "low-grade" product, but few would say 
that its use should be prohibited. Practically all such authorities 
believe oat feed to have a place provided the product is sold at prices 

»' "Cheap "in that it is of little feed value. 



88 COMMKIUUAI. I'KKDS. 

commensurate with its feed value and in proper relation to the prices 
of the recognized high value feeds. In fact, the severest condemna- 
tion of oat feed made hy most agricultural authorities was that the 
price at which the product sold was out of proportion to its feed 
value. This situation has existed, apparently, for many years, 
since in November, 1898, the Massacliusetts Agricultural College 
stated that "Such feeds have a very inferior feeding value and are 
not worth over one-half as much as corn meal."^" 

Prof. L. A. Maynard, of the New York State College of Agriculture, 
in an address before the Association of Feed Control Officials of the 
United States, November 19, 1920, said: 

The New York farmer * * * can not afford to buy oat hull.'! until he has fed nil 
his oat straw, and rather than feed his dairy animals on either one he had lietter gel 
rid of them, for he is losing money. 

However, one of the large producers of this product takes issue 
with such statements and submits data compiled by his company 
showing the relative prices of 12 leading feed materials, including 
several mixed feeds, based on total digestible nutrients. According 
to these data oat fced,^*'' from January 1, 1914, to October 1, 1919, 
was frequently 'the cheapest source of digestible nutrients among 
the feeds listed and seldom worse than the second or third cheapest 
in the list. A mixed feed containing oat feed averaged about the 
fifth cheapest on the list. 

The opposition of at least some feed manufacturers to oat feed 
must be viewed with suspicion. Undoubtedly one of the prin- 
cipal reasons for opposition from this source to the use of oat 
feed is the fact that the larger producers of this product use it in 
mixed feeds and that they can and do sell these mixtures at prices 
which are frequently below those of competing manufacturers. Add 
to this the fact that mixtures containing oat feed have the largest 
sale of any mixed feeds, and it is readily understood why the opposi- 
tion to the product is so widespread and persistent. 

Some of the manufacturers who are opposed to the use of oat feed 
have advocated that its shipment and sale be prohibited. These 
manufacturers, however, have admitted that the product could be 
utilized to good advantage by feeders and farmers near the source of 
supply — in this instance the oatmeal mills. In other words, a farmer 
near Cedar Rapids, Iowa, could haul oat feed from a large mill near 
that point to his farm and feed it to good advantage. But these 
manufacturers contend that it is a great economic waste for a 
farmer located in Virginia or any point far removed from an oat- 
meal mill to buy and transport oat feed from such distant points, 
because the feed value of the oat feed is relatively too small to stand 
the transportation costs. 

Defense of oat feed. — Those who defend the product point to 
the series of tests made by the Maryland Agricultural Experiment 
Station as partial proof of the value of oat feed. They also compare 
the chemical composition and digestibility of oat hulls witn that of 
timothy hay, as presented in the following table, and ask why oat 
feed, which is bettor than oat hulls, should be condemned and not 
timothy hay. 

w Bulletin 66, p- 19- 

"Bft The price figures were taken from the Boston Chamber of Commerce .statistics for "reground oat 
hulls," which are probably the same as oat feed. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 



89 



Table 16. — Average chemical composition ' and digestihility - of oat hulls as compared 
with timothy hay.^ 





Pro- 
tein. 


Digest- 
ible 

Fe£. 


Fat. 


Digest- 
ible 
tat. 


Fiber. 


Digest- 
ible 
fiber. 


N.F.E. 


Digest- 
ible 
N.F.E. 


Total di- 
gestible 
nutrients 
perlOO 
pouBds. 




Perct. 
4.0 
6.2 


Per ct. 
50 

48 


Perct. 
1.7 

2.5 


Perct. 
77 
50 


Perct. 
29.2 
29.9 


Perct. 
60 
50 


Per ct. 
52.3 
45.0 


Perct. 
53 
62 


Per cent. 
50.1 











' Average of 16 analyses of oat hulls and 221 analyses of timothy hay. 
3 One test of oat hulls and average of .58 tests of 'timothy hay. 
3 Henry and .Morrison. 17th ed. 

Users of oat feed contend that, in the interest of conservation, all 
products having a feed value should be utilized. They state that 
it is more economical that oats be milled and the offal, or oat feed, 
fed to stock and the oatmeal to mankind than that whole oats should 
be fed to stock. In support of this contention these supporters of 
oat feed cite Dr. Henry Prentiss Armsby, director of the Institute 
of Animal Nutrition of the Pennsylvania State College. In his 
book, The Conservation of Food Energy, Dr. Armsby gives the per- 
centage recovery of energy from feeding whole oats direct to stock 
as compared with the percentage recovery of energy from milling 
oats and feeding only the offal, or oat feed, to stock and using the 
oatmeal as human food, as follows: 





Recovery of energy. 




Cattle. 


Sheep. 


Hogs. 


Dairy 
cows. 




Per cent. 
15 

58 


Per cent. 
17 

58 


Per cent. 
38 
64 


Per cent. 


Oats milled 









As a final argument for the use of oat feed the mixed-feed manu- 
facturers using it point to the many thousands of testimonials from 
satisfied customers who have used mi.xtures containing oat feed for 
years and who have obtained satisfactory results. Many of these 
were entirely unsolicited. Owners of prize herds frequently tell in 
these testimonials of the beneficial results secured from mixtures con- 
taining oat feed. 

Section 11. The problem of low-grade feeds. 

The use of the low-grade materials previously discussed as feed 
for animals has been the cause of a great deal of controversy. The 
more important angles of the controversy are set forth in the fol- 
lowing sections, and such conclusions and recommendations as the 
Commission believes pertinent are also given. 

Apparently little has been done to determine definitely the merits 
of the arguments. It must be concluded that scientific data regard- 
ing the utility of these materials do not exist, since even the most 
outspoken opponents of low-grade feeds were unable to furnish or 
even suggest the source from which proof for their assertions might 



90 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

be secured. Similarly, the most ardent supporters of these low-grade 
feeds were in most instances without authoritative data with which 
to support their claims. Much of the material secured by the Com- 
mission consisted largely of criticisms based on selfisn grounds. 
This was particularly true of some of the information given by 
manufacturers. It is natural that producers of these materials 
would vigorously defend them, but the bitterness with which some 
manufacturers attacked their use was startling, especially so as 
many of their criticisms were not substantiated. In view of the 
fact that the business is highly competitive, the Commission has 
concluded that much of the opposition to the low-grade feeds is 
due to this competition. 

Aside from the above factors personal prejudices have much to do 
with the attitude taken, and this is particularly true in the case of 
farmers. Locality also has much to do with the opinions held by 
various opponents of the so-called low-grade feedingstuffs. Feeders 
and agricultural experiment station authorities in New England are 
practically agreed that cottonseed hulls should not be fed in that 
section oi the country. They hold that since this product has a 
very low feed value the transportation charges from the South to 
New England make it a very expensive feed, aside from the initial 

Erice of the product. On the other hand, cottonseed hulls are very 
ighly prized as a roughage by southern feeders, and their use is 
advocated by most southern agricultural experiment station authori- 
ties, provided the price at which they can be secured is sufficiently 
low. Southern manufacturers, as a rule, are not willing that the 
sale of this product should be prohibited. 

The use of ground corncobs in a mixed feed, for example, is opposed 
by many feeders, agricultural experiment station authorities, and 
some manufacturers. Yet these same feeders and agricultural 
authorities believe farmers should grind their corn with the cob and 
feed both as a part of a home-mixed ration, as is frequently done. 
The criticism in this case is that when buying a mixed feed containing 
corncobs the farmer is purchasing a roughage of which he frequently 
has, or should have, a sufficient supply, if not a surplus, and that he 
may be paying an unduly high price for this roughage. 

Relation of prices to feed values. — It is often alleged by those 
opposing the use of low-grade feeds that the prices at which they are 
sold are entirely too high, feed value considered. It is, of course, im- 
possible to state the actual feed value of these low-grade feeds since 
there are no recognized scientific data upon which such statements 
may be based. However, while the charge is one that might be 
expected during the past few years of high prices, this complaint has 
existed for many years. Since most of these low-grade feeding stuffs 
are by-products, it is maintained by some that to have sold them at 
lower prices would have meant higher prices for the principal product. 
It is frequently alleged that purchasers of mixed feeds containing oat 
feed, or any otber of the products commonly listed as roughages, 
pay for the oat feed or other feed of a similar nature at a rate per ton 
equal to the price of the mixture. Thus, if a mixture containing oat 
feed sold at .SSO per ton, many believe tbey would be paying $50 i)er 
ton for the oat feed. It may be stated with absolute assurance that 
such is rarely, if ever, the case. Competitive conditions in the in- 
dustry will not permit following sucn a practice. Reference to 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 91 

Chapter III, section 9, will show the method followed by practically 
all manufacturers in figuring their costs. 

If the chemical analysis were a proper standard by which the feed 
value of a feed could be measured it certainly would substantiate the 
assertions that some of these low-grade feeds, or roughages, have 
been sold at comparatively high prices. For example, oat feed, 
which analyzes low in protein and fat and high in fiber, at $50 per ton 
would be, for some purposes at least, a poor purchase compared with 
corn gluten feed, which analyzes much higher in fat and protein and 
much lower in fiber, at $80 per ton. But oat feed is not intended as a 
substitute for corn gluten feed and is not sold or used as such. The 
defenders of oat feed contend, and rightly so, that for some purposes 
corn gluten feed would be valueless and oat feed would meet the 
requirements. 

Use of low-grade materials as adulterants. — It is alleged by 
some that the low-grade materials are frequently used as adulterants 
in mixed feeds. Since these materials are usually cheaper than 
high-grade products, it is to be expected that when adulteration is 
practiced the former or cheaper materials would be used. 

The adulteration of feeds is discussed elsewhere in this report. It 
may be stated here, however, that the reply made by mixed-feed 
manufacturers to the charge of adulteration is that manufacturers 
can not afford to adulterate their products; that they are in business 
permanently and can not imperil their investments by such practices. 
They admit using some low-grade materials in their mixtures, but 
not as adulterants, contending that such ingredients are used for 
other specific purposes. 

Advisability of farmers buying roughages. — Agricultural au- 
thorities maintain that farmers should produce and not purchase 
their roughages. Many of these authorities contend that a farmer 
who does not produce sufficient roughages to meet his requirements 
is not farming efficiently. 

Although it might be better if farmers produced all the roughages 
necessary to feed their stock, the fact remains that there are many 
who do not and who therefore must purchase them. Liverymen and 
dwellers in and near cities owning a few animals are often practically 
forced to purchase all, or nearly all, their feeds, including roughages. 
This is also true of many large dairymen, particularly those in the 
Eastern States, where farms are small and cities and towns are numer- 
ous. Dr. Patterson, of the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
tion, has stated that in Maryland there are many such dairymen, and 
in his opinion the same condition exists in practically all the States 
of the northeast section of the country. 

Use of low-grade materlils in mixed feeds. — While as has 
been previously pointed out, there is a manifest lack of scientific or 
authoritative data to support many of the criticisms of low-grade 
feeds, the agitation against their use in mixed feeds is to be expected 
when the formulas of some mixed feeds are examined. It is true that 
most of such feeds are made to meet a demand and that they probably 
are used for specific purposes, which they fill. Nevertheless, if it is 
necessary to manufacture mixtures containing 50 per cent, 60 per 
cent, 70 per cent, and even 80 per cent, of these low-grade materials to 
meet the demands of certain purchasers, it would seem desirable so to 
label these mixtures as to prevent the purchase of them by those who 



92 (lOMMI'.RCIAl. FKKDS. 

are inclined to believe that such mixed feeds are not economical or 
fit for their purposes. 

It is, evidently, mixtures containing Inw-^rade ins;redicnts to the 
extent shown below that have had much to do with the opposition 
to mixed feeds. Clipped oat by-product 30 per cent and ground 
flaxseed screenings 40 per cent, a total of 70 per cent low-grade 
ingredients; screenings 44 per cent, oat feed 30 per cent, a total 
of 74 per cent; clipped oat by-product .50 per cent, and 30 per cent 
of flaxseed screenings, in all SO per cent of low-grade materials, are 
but a few instances of many mixed feeds sold which have unfloubtedly 
been responsible for much of the opposition. Lacking any other 
st.nndard of measurement it would seem that mixtures with such high 
percentages of low-grade materials as are given above might well be 
called low-grade mixed feeds. 

In buying some mixed feeds the purchaser does not know what he 
is buying. It is claimed that it is his right to know how much of 
each ingredient the mixture contains. Mixed-feed manufacturers 
frequently answer such assertions with the reply that it is asking 
for information which would be of no benefit to the farmer because, 
they say, he is too ignorant, usually, to know what he needs. vSuch 
answers are, of course, beside the point, unjustifiable, and imworthy 
of consideration. A knowledge of the percentage of ingredients in a 
mixture may not interest some purchasers of mixed feeds. Others, 
however, may need this information if for no othcj' reason than to 
enable them to discriminate in purchasing such products. 

Section 12. Proposals for settlement of the low-grade feed problem. 

It is to be expected that numerous solutions would be advanced in 
a matter over which there is so much controversy. The most fre- 

3uently proposed solutions are given below in brief form and each is 
iscussed later. None of the solutions is advanced by the Commis- 
sion. They have been proposed by men directly interested in the 
animal feeds business. 

1. To prohibit the shipment and sale of the low-grade products. 

2. To limit the shipment and sale of the low-grade products to a 
short distance from the point of production. 

3. To rec(uire mixed-leed manufacturers u.sing any of the low-grade 
feeds in their mixtures to state on tags and labels one of the follo\ving: 

(ff) The percentage of each of the low-grade ingredients in the 
mixture. 

(6) The percentage of each ingredient in the mixture. 

(c) To use a tag of a distinctive color, as yellow, or red, on each 
parcel of feed containing certain low-grade materials. 

id) A combination of in) and (c) or (h) and <c). 

ie) To list the ingredients in the order of their preponderance. 

The first solution given above is not highly regarded even by most 
of the opponents of the low-grade products. It would not be possi- 
ble to prevent the shipment and sale of these low-grade commodities 
without a great change in the existing laws. It is advanced by only a 
few factors in the business, and in the absence of proper data as to the 
feed value or lack of feed value oi low-grade foods can not be success- 
fully maintained. This proposal is usually advanced for competi- 
tive reasons and is given here merely to show how extreme are the 
positions taken. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 93 

The suggestion that the sale and shipment of certain commodities 
listed as roughages be limited to a territory near the point of produc- 
tion is eqtially open to objection. Briefly stated, the proposition is 
that it is uneconomic to add the burden of any appreciable transpor- 
tation charges to the first cost of some of these low-grade products. 
In other words, it is contended that there is a point beyond which 
their shipment should not be permitted. 

Even if it were legal thus to limit the shipment of these materials, 
it would be practically impossible to draft such a law because, as 
has been so frequently pointed out, the feed value of these feeding 
stuffs has not been definitely determined. A Federal law, for in- 
stance, which would prohibit or restrict the use of certain roughages 
or low-grade feeds would certainly meet \vith strenuous opposition 
in many States. 

The solution of the low-grade feeds problem which has been most 
frequently advanced has taken form in the various plans for stating 
the percentages of the ingredients in mixed feeds. A number of 
laws, both Federal and State, have been proposed embodying one 
or another of the several plans. There are at the present time laws 
embodying some of these features in efl'ect in several States. 

One of the reasons advanced for requiring the statement of the 

fiercentages of ingredients is that such a provision would enable 
armers to discriminate in their purchases of mixed feeds. It is be- 
lieved by some that if a farmer knew that a feed contained a high 
percentage of roughages or low-grade feeds he would not purchase 
it, and that this in itself would tend to curtail the sale and use of 
the low-grade feeding stuff's. It is also the belief of those favoring 
such a plan that it would give to the feeders and farmers information 
to which they are entitled. 

The statement of the percentages of the ingredients in a mixed 
feed would not necessarily diminish the sale of feeds containing low- 
OTade commodities. There is no indication that the sale of mixed 
feeds containing low-grade commodities is decreasing to a great extent 
in the States where such feeds must be sold under an open formula. 

The objections to the percentage of ingredients proposals are 
numerous, and some of them of such importance as to justify careful 
consideration. The feed manufacturers who use some low-grade 
products in their mixtures urge that it would be unfair to them to 
I'cquire the statement of the percentages of only low-grade products, 
since it would tend to center attention on these products at the 
expense or to the disadvantage of any high-grade mgredients used 
in the mixture. They believe that if the percentages of aiiy ingre- 
dients are to be stated, then the statement should cover all the 
ingi'edients and should apply to all mixed feeds. 

Many feed-control officials agree with the feed manufacturers 
that it is not feasible to state tiie percentages of the ingi-edients in 
mixed feeds. A law rec^uiring such statements is objected to on 
the following grounds : 

(1) It sets up a double standard, which can not be met by the 
manufacturers. 

(2) It would increase the price of feeds to the consumer. 

(3) It would be placing a penalty on the honest feed manufac- 
turers. 

(4) It could not be enforced. 



94 COMMEBCIAL FEEDS. 

If manufacturers of feeds arc rcfjuired to guarantee the percentages 
of each ingredient in a mixture, it is asserted that they will not be 
able to maintain that guaranty and at the same time maintain the 
guaranteed chemical analysis of the feed. This is due to the fact 
that few, if any, feeding stufl's arc constant in their chemical analysis. 
Several are of fairly uniform composition, analyzing within a narrow 
range at practically all times. Most feeds, however, vary widely, 
and this variation is found in the high-grade products as well as in 
the low-grade products. These variations are due to several causes, 
the chief ones being the fact that many of the raw materials from 
which the feeds are produced vary in composition. Then, too, 
the efficiency of the conversion processes influences to a great degree 
the chemical composition of a product, with the result that a given 
product from one plant may differ materially from that from another. 

If a mixed-feed manufacturer guaranteed one of his feeds to 
contain 20 per cent protein and he customarily used, for example, a 
41 per cent cottonseed meal to secure the bulk of the protein in his 
mixture, he would of necessity vary the percentage of cottonseed 
meal in the mixture if he was unable to secure 41 per cent cotton- 
seed meal and was forced to use 36 per cent cottonseed meal, or 
meal containing 48 per cent protein. Such variations would, of 
course, mean a change in the percentages of the ingredients. If, 
on the other hand, the manufacturer did not change the percentage 
of cottonseed meal in his feed, the use of 36 per cent cottonseed meal 
would result in a violation of his guaranteed chemical analysis or 
necessitate constant changes in his registrations. 

That such variations as cited for cottonseed meal are found in 
other products is shown by the following statement, which is merely 
illustrative : 



Bran ' with mill run of screenings . 

Linseed oil meal ' 

Corn gluten feed 2 

Tankage ' 



Per cent. 
12.40 
32.81 
23.13 
28.94 



Per cent. 
18.70 
46.75 



1 N. Y. .\gr. E.\-p. .Sta. Bui. 45.5, pp. l.'Vl-lfil. 
> Penna. Dept. of Agr. Bui. 342. 

Feed manufacturers attempt to maintain their formulas as constant 
as possible. They find it more economical from an operating stand- 
point and for commercial reasons to have their product run uni- 
formly. Many concerns strive to use ingredients of as even compo- 
sition as possible, as, for example, some attempt to buy only 41 per 
cent cottonseed meal. There are some concerns that do not vary 
their formulas at all for long periods; in a few instances the feeds 
have been the same since their inception. Such feeds, as a rule, are 
composed of comparatively few ingredients. The majority of mixed- 
feed manufacturers find it necessary, or expedient, frequently to 
change their formulas. These changes are at times very marked. 
For example, in 1919 one mixed-feed manufacturer made at least 14 
changes of importance in one of his formulas. Even in prewar years 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 



95 



changes were frequent, this same manufacturer making at least 10 
changes in 1913. 

The changes in the formula of a well-known dairy ration over a 
period of years were submitted to the Commission. The following 
table presents three typical changes in five of the years. Some of the 
ingredients are omitted in order to avoid making public the formula. 



Table 17.- 



-Typical changes in the formula oj a ii<ell-knovjn dairy feed, 191S-191.'), 
1919-20. 





Pounds per ton. 


Commodity. 


1913 


1914 


1915 1919 


1920 




Jan. 
8. 


Feb. 
3. 


Fob. 
11. 


^"l?- 


Sept. 


sept. 


Sept. 


Oct. 
6. 


Dec. Nov. 

8. 1 6. 


Nov. 
29. 


Dec. 
19. 


Mar. 

4. 


Mar. 
11. 


Apr. 


Wheat middlings 

Com... 


200 
335 
150 
700 


100 
585 
200 
600 


100 
C35 
250 
450 


"485' 
200 
460 
150 


150 
130 
300 
260 
200 


'iso' 

350 
300 
200 


100 
230 
300 
20O 
250 


100 
180 
1.50 
400 
260 


200 
80 
100 
450 
?."iO 


50 


275 


355 


405 


405 


405 


Cottonseed meal 

Corn gluten feed 


inn 
4no 


175 
10 


175 
10 


160 
100 


150 
100 


150 

ino 












280 
1.60 
100 
250 
670 


280 
240 
109 
250 
670 


280 
240 
20 
260 
670 


330 
200 
20 
125 
670 


405 

2no 

20 
60 
070 


355 






















200 






















20 










100 
615 


150 

820 


200 
770 


250 

670 


260 
670 


260 
070 


100 


All other ingredients... 


615 


615 


565 


670 



It will be noted from the above that not one of the ingredients 
named was present in the same quantity throughout the period. 

Many of the changes shown were made to meet a situation when 
prices of some commodities were out of line with the prices of other 
materials of a similar composition. Most manufacturers of mixed 
ieeds attempt to keep the prices of their feeds as low as possible because 
of competition. If the price of an ingredient in a mixture should 
increase to the point where it was out of line with the price of another 
similar commodity, the cheaper one would be used m the mixture. 
A few of the changes were due to scarcity of commodities, the most 
notable example being shown in the columns for November 29, 1919, 
and December 19, 1919, when only 10 pounds of corn gluten feed 
were used to each ton of mixed feed. This scarcity of corn-gluten 
feed was due to coal strikes, which prevented the manufacturer from 
securing a supply of this commodity. The 10 pounds were used in 
order to meet the registration of the feed which claimed corn-gluten 
feed as an ingredient. This same reason probably explains the use 
of only 20 pounds of ground barley per ton. 

If the manufacturer of the feed for which formula changes are 
shown had been required to maintain any one of those formulas, his 
mixture would have varied widely in its chemical composition and 
undoubtedly would have necessitated a much higher price being 
charged. As a matter of fact the guaranteed chemical analysis was 
maintained fairly constant. 

In view of the present limited ability of microscopists and chemists 
to determine the presence of the various ingredients in a mixed feed 
the opponents of legislation requiring the statement of the percentage 
of ingredients maintain that such a law is nonenforceaole. It is 
conceded that the percentages of the ingredients in some mixtures. 



96 COMMERCIAL KEKUS. 

as chop feeds or a mixture of two or three coarse commodities, may 
be determined with a fair degree of accuracy. However, these ob- 
jectors maintain there are thousands of tons of mixtures sold which 
are ground very fine and contain a largo number of different ingre- 
dients. It is toward this latter class of feeds that legislation of the 
sort under discussion is especially directed. They cite the fact that 
the science of microscopy has not developed to the point where even 
all the ingredients in a mixed feed can be detected, much less the per- 
centage of each ingredient. This objection is given further weight 
by the results of a recent test conducteil by the Bureau of Chemistry, 
United States Department of Agriculture. The details of this test, 

fiven below, are from the report on Feed Adulteration ))y Miss B. PI. 
ilberberg, of the Bureau of Chemistry, submittecl at the annual 
meeting of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists in Novem- 
ber, 1919. Dr. C. L. Alsberg, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, 
stated that the list of collaborators on the horse-feed test, while not 
including all the chemists or microscopists engaged in this line o{ 
work, represented the most active and presumably most capable 
ones. It is also to be noted that samples of the horse feed were sent 
to two chemists who claimed to be enforcing a clause in their State 
laws requiring the declaration of percentages of ingredients in mixed 
feeds, and yet no replies were received from them. 

REPORT OF REFEREE ON FEED ADULTERATION. ASSOCIATION OF 
OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS. 1919. 

Tho phase of feed analysis which has been most prominent durinij the past year 
or two is that of the quantitative determination of percentage of ingredients, par- 
ticularly of mixed feeds. It was therefore considered desirable to confine this year's 
work under feed adulteration to investigations along this line. In this connection 
two samples were sent to the collaborators — one a cottonseed meal for determination 
of hulls, according to a method de^'ised by the referee, and the other a molasses feed 
or horse feed. 

Part I. — Cottonseeu Meal. 

This was in a sense a continuation of the work done two years ago on hull determina- 
tion in cottonseed meal. The low results on hull content obtained by the collaborators 
at that time were thought to be largely due to the use of a rough mortar. The use 
of a glass mortar and pestle was therefore recommended and the directions were 
slightly revised. As was stated in the last report, an ordinary commercial sample 
was used, since it is impossible to simulate manufacturing processes under laboratory 
conditions. The exact hull content of the sample was therefore unknown. Of the 
16 collaborators some were using the method for almost the first time, while others 
had had quite a little experience with it. The results as shown by the table varied 
from l(i per cent of hulls to 2-J..3 per cent of hulls. This, needless to say. indicates 
that the personal element introduces so large a factor of error as to make the method 
impracticable for general use. Probably the fact that the meal contained a great 
deal of lint ma<le it more difficult to work, but it must be conceded that a method 
which is not adaptable to any type of sample is not worthy of general adoption. 

One cause of the variation in restilta appears to be the method of drvdng the hulls 
after separation. Air drying to constant weight seems to be the most desirable method, 
but in some sections of the country where the humidity is high this is too prolonged 
an operation. It is evident from the character of the results that if any method 
similar to this one is used, very definite instructions wliich will take into consideration 
the varying atmospheric conditions in different parts of the country must be given. 

Two of the collaborators each suggested another method. One was based on the 
determination of the crude iiber figure. The other method is one which involves 
the actual separation of the hulls from the meal and sounds ^■ery promising. It ia 
to be hoped that during the next year these methods, and possibly others, may be 
given a thorough trial. 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 97 

Part II. — Horse Feed. 

This particular type of molasses feed was chosen for two reasons: (1) Because it is 
probably the commonest type of mixed feed, and (2) because it is the easiest type in 
which to identify the ingredients and possibly to determine their approximate 
percentages. At any rate, if the percentages of ingredients in such a sample could 
not be determined with a fair degree of accuracy, it would be reasonable to assume 
that it would be an impossibility to do so in any other land of mixed feed. In fact, 
■one of the collaborators wrote in protesting against the use of this kind of feed as a 
basis for conclusions on this subject, claiming that it was much too simple to be repre- 
isentalive of the average tyjie of mixed feed presented to the analyst. Nevertheless, 
this analyst failed to find two of the ingredients most easily identified microscopically, 
and reported t\^ice as much of one of the others as was actually present. The prin- 
cipal ingredients were ordinary commercial products purchased from feed stores. 
The cracked corn was fairly clean and was a mixture of white and yellow com; the 
oats were practically free fi'om weed seeds, but contained a slight trace of barley; the 
alfalfa was an ordinary sample of meal of good color; the cottonseed meal was of 

grime quality (39.8 per cent protein); the cottonseed hulls were ground delinted 
ulls; the peanut shells were ground to pass through a 1 mm. (20-mesh) sieve, and 
the molasses was cane, commonly called blackstrap. The chemical analysis was 
worked out according to the ingredients and amounts present from Henry and Mor- 
rison's Feeds and Feeding and the guaranty based thereon. 

The folloiving information was given the collaborators upon which to base their 
identification of ingredients and their approximate percentages. This represents an 
adulterated molasses feed with the following chemical guaranty and declared list 
of ingredients: 

Protein, 12 per cent; fat, 3 per cent; crude fiber, 20 per cent. Ingredients: Corn, 
oats, barley, alfalfa, cottonseed meal, and molasses. 

This is \ery similar to samples which have come under the referee's notice. 

The ingredients were mixed in the customary manner employed in mixed-feed 
plants; that is, the warm molasses was mixed witn the dusty, dry ingredients and the 
grains added afterwards. Each ingi'edient was carefully weighed and an exact 
percentage added. The feed was kept thoroughly mixed in order that each sub- 
sample should be uniform. 

The reports of the collaborators show an eager and earnest spirit of cooperation, 
and without question represent the best efforts of feed analysts fi-om various parts 
of the country who are considered most active and competent in this field of work. 
The results are therefore of particular interest. The feed contained 20 per cent 
of corn; the results of the collaborators varied fi-om 11 per cent to 21.5 per cent. There 
was 1.5 per cent of oats present; reports varied from 10 per cent to 19 per cent, although 
three reported the oats con-ectly. No barley was added, but a slight trace was present 
asa contamination of the oats. It is more than likely that some subsamples con- 
tained no barley. The highest amount reported was 0.9 per cent. Twenty-five 
per cent of alfalfa was present; the reports varied from 24.6 per cent to 35 per cent, 
although all but the one high one were remarkably close. The amount of cottonseed 
meal added was 10 per cent; only two of the collaborators found any cottonseed meal, 
one reporting 4 per cent and the other 35.9 per cent. There was al.so 10 per cent of 
cottonseed hulls used in addition to the meal; reports on these ranged from none to 
30.3 per cent, all but the one reporting 20 per cent or over. Five per cent of peanut 
shells were added, and not one of the collaborators discovered these. This is of 
special interest in view of the fact that one of the proposed laws relative to mixed 
feeds contained a clause providing that when 5 per cent or over of a low-grade ingre- 
dient was used, the percentage present should be stated on the label. The amount 
of molasses present was 15 per cent; reports ranged from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. 

These results speak for themselves, but it is impossible to resist a few comments. 
In the first place one surpiising and outstanding fact is that in practically every case 
the work, even the identification of the ingredients, was done by chemists instead of 
microscopists and apparently without the use of a microscope. Of course, there is 
nothing to prevent anyone with chemical training from also taking special training 
in plant histology, including microscopy. But the results show how utterly out of 
the (juestion it is for one without such special training, no matter how good achemist 
he may be, to do the microscopic work; that is, the identification of ingredients 
in feeds. I know of no one ingredient of feeds which ia more easily identified micro- 
scopically than cottonseed meal. A few years ago I showed an analyst how to iden- 
tify cottonseed meal in a mixed feed and he afterwards identified it positively in a 
feed which contained less than a hundredth of a per cent. This horse feed contained 
at least 7 or 8 per cent of hull-free cottonseed meal, and yet only two analysts found 
any present, and several of the others specifically stated in their reports that they 

42976°— 21 7 



98 



COMMERCIAL TEKOS. 



saw no evidence of the presence of cottonseed meal. While 5 per cent of some in- 
gredients in certain mixtures would be difficult to identify, even for a microscopist, 
there are at least three distinctive types of tissue which would enable the plant hia- 
tologist to identify peanut shells. 

This whole question is not oriffinal or new, nor is it the first time it has been pre- 
sented at a scientific meeting. Dr. A. L. Winton in a paper entitled " The Microscop- 
ical Examination of Vegetable Products As An Adjunct to Their Chemical Analysis," 
reprinted in the American Journal of Pharmacy, March, 1913, from original communi- 
cations. Eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry (Vol. XVIII, 361-366), 
says: "Without a certain amount of botanical training, * * * a chemist is no 
more fitted to take up microscopical analysis than a botanist without chemical train- 
ing is fitted to work at quantitati^•e analysis." 

The ine^itable conclusion is that unless a prodigy can be found who has V>een 
trained both as a chemist and a plant histologist or niicroscopist, the chemi.«t and 
microscopist must work together for efficient feed analysis, for the one can not do 
the work of the other. 

With regard to the work for the ensuing year it seems advisable that, in view of the 
suggestions made by collaborators, the work on hull determination in cottonseed meal 
be continued. A few years ago work was begun on methods of sampling scratch 
feed containing grit or shell. The results so far obtained show that the methods of 
mixing commonly used do not insure a homogeneous sample. A method which will 
do this is most necessary, and it is suggested that work along this line be continued. 
Several years ago it was recommended that a key or outline for the qualitative detec- 
tion of various products used in feeds be presented. Such an outline has been made 
by the referee for the information sheets of the Bureau of Chemistry, United States 
Department of Agriculture, on the microscopic examination of feeds and feeding- 
stuffs and may be had on application to the referee. 







Table 


I. 








Analyst. 


Proportion of hulls reported, showing number of determi- 
nations made by each analyst. 


Average. 


A 


Per cent. 
22.0 
24.4 
16.2 
24.6 
1S.3 
20.4 
19.3 
20.7 
16.1 
19.2 
21.7 
23.2 

2ao 

23.3 
20.2 

25. S 


Per cent. 
21.8 
24.8 
15.9 
24.0 
18.2 
21.3 
19.2 
19.4 
17.8 
1&6 
23.5 
20.8 


Per cent. 


Percent. 


Per cent. 


Percent. 


B 


21.0 
16.4 


22.4 
15.5 






C 






D 




24 3 


E 


18.3 








F 






20.85 


G 










H 


20.5 
16.3 
19.3 
23.9 








I 








K 


18.9 


19.4 




I. 


28.0 


M 






22.0 


N 








2ao 














23.3 


P 










20.2 


Q 


24.8 








25.3 











Table II. 



Per- 
cent- 1 
ages 
present 



Percentages reported by analysts — 



Corn 

Oats 

Barley 

AUalfa 

Cottonseed meal 
Cottonseed hulls 
Peanut shells. .. 



21.5 
18.9 



{ ^l ) ^-0 



21.3 
15.9 

24.9 
35.9 



' Trace; contamination of oats. 



THE LOW-GKADE I'EEDS. 99 

The State of Texas has a clause in its feed law requiring, under 
certain circumstances, the statement of the percentages of low-grade 
ingredients in a mixed feed. F. D. Fuller, chief of the division of 
feed control service of Texas, at a hearing in Washington before 
representatives of the Department of Agriculture, on February 12, 
1919, made the following statement: 

I think it is a debatable question as to whether the percentage of composition of the 
feed can be actually determined. On some mixtures I think it is feasible — mixtures 
containing two or possibly three ingredients — but I have yet to be shown that in case 
of a mixture containing a largo number of ingredients, or po.ssibly three or four ingre- 
dients derived from corn, for instance, like hominy feed, yellow hominy feed [it is 
possible),^' to do it. Personally, as a chemist, it would bo impossible for me to make 
that separation with any degree of accuracy. In the enforcement of our Texas feed 
laws I must rely ab.solutely on the evidence presented to me by the chemist, and I 
have not yet felt that I was justified in instituting cases in courts which were based 
entirely on such evidence. 

Dr. Alsberg. You have been able to do it where there were only two or three 
ingredients? 

Mr. Fuller. Yes, sir. It can be done with a fair degree of accuracy. We have 
brought cases where the manufacturer had guaranteed 2 per cent of grit, and we have 
found an excess of grit, in some instances, of 18 per cent. That was a very simple 
matter, but it may be that the State of Texas is very fortunate in having a chemist 
who is able to give us the information desired which mil enable us to secure convic- 
tion in the local coirrts. As evidence of the fact that the manufacturers are complying 
with that provision of the act, I would like to submit for your information these tags, 
which are official tags. They have been used in Texas with the sale of feeds. 

Mr. Haywood. That is. Mr. Fuller, you would say they are putting on the percent- 
age of each ingredient and the protein, fat, and fiber, but in a good many cases you 
don't know whether they are true or not. 

Mr. Fuller. I haven't received that information from the chemist. I might say, 
furthermore, oiu' chemist assures me that it can be done vnth a sufficient degree of 
accuracy to enable the enforcement of the act. 

It may be noted in connection with Mr. Fuller's statements that 
the mere fact that manufacturers give percentages of ingredients on 
the tags is not proof that the manufacturers use the precentages 
given in compounding their mixtures, as Dr. Haywood, of the De- 
partment of Agriculture, says. The Texas chemist may feel certain 
that the percentages may be determined sufficiently close for en- 
forcement purposes, but the tests made by the Department of Agri- 
culture would indicate that such assurance is not well founded. The 
case previously alluded to of a manufacturer using twice as much 
oat hulls as was declared may serve as a further illustration. 

The objection to the statement of the percentages of each ingre- 
dient in a mixture on the grounds that it would be placing a penalty 
on the honest manufacturer is closely allied to the other objections. 
If it is not possible to determine the percentages after the mixture is 
made, then an honest manufacturer who states the true percentages 
of the ingredients in his mixture would be forced to compete with the 
dishonest manufacturer who would, for example, give a statement of 
percentages and then exceed the amount he specified for the low-grade 
commodity in his feed. 

However, honest manufacturers are now forced to withstand com- 
petition of a somewhat similar nature, for it is possible, without 
stating them as ingredients, to add a small percentage of oat hulls or 
oat feed, for example, to a mixture containing crushed oats, or to add a 
small cjuantity of elevator dust to a mixture without fear of detection. 

29 Inserted by Commission. 



100 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

The fact that the statement of the percentages of the ingredients 
would be to make public the formulas which are regarded by some as 
a business secret is advanced as an objection to such legislation. 
This, however, is not always sincerely advocated, for it is admitted 
by several manufacturers that they do not believe that their feeds 
could be duplicated from the formula printed on the tag. This is 
because of the variations in the chemical composition of the different 
ingi'edients. Merely to know that a feed contained, say, 20 per cent 
of cottonseed meal would not be sufficient, since cottonseed meal 
varies materially in its chemical composition. This variation is 
found in practically every commodity, as has been previously stated. 

Probably one of the reasons why manufacturers who use low-grade 

f)roducts take the position that if open formulas are required the 
aw should apply to all feeds is to be found in the fact that if all 
mixed-feed manufacturers are required to state the percentage of 
each ingredient in their feeds the opposition to such proposals would 
be increased and strengthened, and thus the main issue, namely, the 
fight against low-grade feeds, becomes of secondary importance. By 
requiring mixed-feed manufacturers to state the percentages of all 
ingredients the users of the low-grade ingredients are not compelled 
to stand alone. By including all mixed-feed manufacturers the 
issue becomes widespread, and stating the percentages of the low-grade 
ingredients is no longer the debated pomt, since manufacturers in 

f;eneral quickly combine to fight such proposals. Comparatively 
ew manufactui'ers are willing to state the percentages of ingredients 
in their feeds. These manufacturers do not as a rule make mixtures 
containing many ingredients. It is also true that they do not use 
the low-grade products to a great extent. 

It has been suggested that tags attached to mixed feeds containing 
low-grade materials be of a distinctive color, as yellow or red. The 
idea is that such tags would serve as a warning of the presence of 
low-grade materials m the mixtui-e. Minnesota requires such mix- 
tures to carry a yellow tag with red printing. Feed manufacturers 
opposing such requirements assert that a mixture may contain 
low-grade materials and yet be a highly useful feed and that the 
farmer is not interested in the composition of the feed but in the re- 
sults which he obtains from its use. 

The statement of the ingredients in a mixed feed in the order of 
their preponderance has been suggested as a possible solution of the 
low-grade feed problem. However, such a plan is subject to a large 
extent to the same objections as those given against stating the 
percentages of all ingredients in mLxed feeds. 

Section 13. Conclusions. 

The study of the low-grade feed problem has led the Commission 
to the following conclusions: 

1. That the argument for and against low-grade feeds has been 
based to a great extent upon hearsay and personal opinion, and 
that sufficient data of a scientific nature upon which to base conclu- 
sions as to the value of the low-grade feeds do not exist. 

The above conclusion is supported by statements of feed manufac- 
turers and scientific men interested in the industry. Practically 
all parties interviewed agi'eed that there are few data concerning 
the feed value of many of the low-grade products. The very smaJQ 



THE LOW-GRADE FEEDS. 101 

quantity of such material offered by the opponents and proponents 
of the h)w-grade feeds indicates that such data do not exist. 

2. That the controversy has been clouded and confused by state- 
ments and allegations of mixed-feed manufacturers on both sides of 
the question, wdio argue from selfish motives, and by farmers, feed- 
ers, and many of their supporters, who make charges and assertions 
not supported by proof. 

3. That the objections to these feeds are largely due to the prices 
at which they sell. 

The prices of low-grade feeds have advanced very materially in 
recent years, like most other commodities, but no evidence has been 
found of any manipulation or combination responsible for such 
increases. The prices of the high-grade feedingstufl's have also in- 
creased greatly in recent years. It does not appear, furthermore, 
that farmers and feeders have been forced to purchase the low-grade 
feeds or the mixed feeds containing them, since there are tlie high- 
grade feeds, both mixed and straight, which can be purchased. 

4. That it does not appear feasible, at least at the present time, to 
pass a law prohibiting (or restricting) the use of these feeds. Even 
if such a law were constitutional, to pass it now with the limited data 
available regarding the feed value of these products would be unwise. 

5. That while it is desirable to give the consumer as much infor- 
mation as is possible regarding these feeds, a law requiring the 
statement of any or all percentages of ingredients, or the listing of 
ingredients in a mixed feed in order of their preponderance, would 
be difHcult to enfoi-ce. 

Before the controvers};' over the low-grade feeds can be settled 
and a satisfactory conclusion arrived at the Commission believes 
that a series of feeding tests of the most exliaustive nature should be 
made with each of the low-grade feeds, and probably combinations 
of the low-grade feeds with certain high-grade feeds. Such tests 
should be made by a disinterested body, preferably the United 
States Department of Agriculture, assisted by the various State 
agricultural college and feed-control officials. The work of educating 
and encouraging farmers in the proper feeding of their stock also 
should be continued. 

It should also be definitely determined by cooperative experiments 
between the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of 
Agriculture, and the various State feed-control officials whether 
known ingredients in mixed feeds, similar to those sold in the United 
States, can or can not be quantitatively determined. 



Chapter V. 
WHOLESALE PRICES 

Section 1. Introductory. 

The Commission endeavored to secure representative price records 
of most of the principal by-product straight feeds and ako of typical 
ready-mixed feeds in each of the main subgroups named in Cliapter 
III, section 9, viz, dairy feeds, stock feeds, horse and mule feeds, 
hog feeds, calf meals, and poultry feeds. The number of brands of 
ready-mixed feeds is enormous. Some are sold only locally, but 
even those which are generally advertised and widely distributed 
are so numerous that it was out of the question to secure prices for 
any considerable part of them. However, it is believed tliat price 
records were obtained for a sufficient number of widely distributed 
feeds in each group of the ready-mixed feeds to be representative of 
that group, and that consequently a fair picture of the price move- 
ment of the entire class of mixed feeds is presented. 

Character of statistics and method of treatment. — The 
statistics of prices were collected partly by the Commission's agents 
from the records of manufacturers and jobbers, and partly through 
correspondence with manufacturers, who compiled the statistics 
and furnished them directly to the Commission. Statistics were 
also secured from published sources, chiefly trade papers, and aver- 
ages were computed from them. This material was used to check 
the figures from other sources, and in a few cases averages derived 
from the published figures have been used to supplement the latter. 
However, it has been considered desirable to use in this chapter, as 
far as practicable, the figures obtained from manufacturers and job- 
bers as probably more nearly representing the actual price situation 
than the published figures, whicli in some cases may not represent 
actual transactions. 

In any study of price statistics it is desirable to have true averages 
computed by dividing the total proceeds from sales of the given 
commodity during a certain period (e. g., a month) by the total 
quantity sold durmg the period. It was found that feed manufac- 
turers rarely have statistics of this character compil(>d for their own 
use, and the Commission could not undertake the great amount of 
work which would have been involved in tabulating such statistics 
for a large number of feeds. It was necessary, therefore, to confine 
the compilation of price statistics to certain days in each month, in 
order to bring the clerical work within a reasonable compass. Ac- 
cordingly it was decided to secure the statistics of prices for the 1st, 
10th, and 20th of each month. The prices for these three dates were 
averaged and the resulting figures are presented in the tables in this 
chapter and in the appendix tables in the form of monthly average 
prices. 
102 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 103 

In some instances it was found practicable to take off the prices 
for all transactions on the selected days, together with the corre- 
sponding tonnages. In such cases weighted averages were computed, 
but for the most part the tables present simple averages of the prices 
on the selected dates. 

When published sources were used, the price for a certain day of 
each week was generally taken and averages of these weekly figures 
were used. 

In times of very rapidly fluctuating prices it is possible that the 
average of three quotations a month may not give as accurate a 
measure of the price situation in that month as would be desirable, 
but it was necessary to reduce the number of prices to a workable 
basis, and the dates selected seemed, on the whole, sufficient. 

The price records of some manufacturers had either not been pre- 
served for any considerable period or were not kept in such condition 
that statistics could be readily compiled from them. In some cases 
of this sort c[uotations were furnished instead of actual prices, but 
these were used only when the Commission was assured that these 
quotations represented substantially the prices on actual sales. 
Most manufacturers of mixed feeds asseft that all of their sales of a 
given brand on a given day are made substantially at the same price, 
and in general the statistics furnished by the mixed-feed manufac- 
turers give one price only as representative for each selected date 
(1st, 10th, and 20th). 

In presenting prices of the straight feeds, figures are given for a 
leading market or for two or three markets which were deemed to be 
typical. It is undoubtedly true that unusual conditions in particular 
localities will cause the price of a given feed to run out of line with 
prices of the same feed in other markets. Such conditions, how- 
ever, are generally of relatively short duration, and it is the purpose 
of this report to show only the broad general movement of prices of 
the straiglit feeds and of typical mixed feeds. 

Period covered by the statistics. — The Commission sought, so 
far as was practicable, to secure price records both for straight feeds 
and ready-mixed feeds beginning with January, 1913. The object 
in going back as far as the year 1913 was to extend the price study 
back to a period before the outbreak of the war in Europe, when 

f)resimiably general conditions in the feed industry, as in most other 
ines of business, were fairly normal. The figures for the year 1913, 
which was free from the disturbing conditions accompanying the 
war, may be taken as a basis from which the price movement may 
be traced through the war period and the period of even higher 
prices which followed the armistice. 

While it was attempted to secure price records both for straight 
and ready-mixed feeds §oing back as far as the beginning of 1913, 
it was by no means possible to do this in every case, particularly as 
regards the mixed feeds, chiefly because many manufacturers do 
not preserve the records showing their prices for so long a period, 
while the manufacture and sale of some of the leading mixed feeds 
for which prices were obtained, did not begin until later than 1913. 
However, for practically all the most important straight feeds and 
for one or more mixed feeds in all of the groups except hog feeds 



104 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

and calf meals price statistics were secured beginning with January, 
1913. 

The work of gathering price statistics was substantially finished 
during the summer of 1920. For this reason the price records 
secured, with few exceptions, did not extend beyond the end of 
June, 1920, and the price tables in this report, except the one men- 
tioned in the next paragraph, do not extend beyond June, 1920.' 

The last six months of 1920, and particularly the last four 
months, were noteworthy as a period of rapidly declining prices, 
and a study of price movements which ends with the middle of the 
year is obviously incomplete. It was not feasible to extend the 
field work of the investigation so as to secure complete price statistics 
for the last half of 1920. But to avoid leaving this very remarkable 
and interesting period without comment, a section at the close of 
this chapter (sec. 2.3) gives a brief survey of the course of prices of 
a few of the most important straight feeds from July to December, 
1920, as shown in quotations from published sources. Prices of 
the ready-mixed feeds were not available from these sources. Accord- 
ingly prices for the end of December, 1920, were secured through 
correspondence from most of the manufacturers who had previously 
furnished price records. This makes possible a comparison of the 
prices of December with those of June, 1920, for a number of typical 
mixed feeds. This comparison is also given in section 23, and while 
it does not show the successive steps in the decline of prices of mixed 
feeds, it gives the total decline during the six-montlis' period and 
furnishes the basis for comparing the relative decline in prices of 
ready-mixed feeds with the tall in prices of straight feeds. 

Straight feeds. — In sections 4 to 15 of this chapter will be found 
a discussion of the prices of a large number of straight feeds, for 
most of which tables of monthly average prices are given either in 
this chapter or in the appendix. The list of straight feeds for 
which prices are given is as follows: Corn, oats, wheat bran, standard 
middlings, wheat-mixed feed, flour middlings, red dog, rye middlings, 
hominy feed, reground oat hulls, rice bran, rice polish, corn-gluten 
feed, corn-oil meal, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, linseed meal, 
dried-beet pulp, cane blackstrap molasses, digester tankage, and 
alfalfa meal. 

The comparison of prices of different straight feeds or groups of 
straight feeds with one another will be found in section 2 oi this 
chapter. 

Mixed feeds. — Sections 16 to 22 are devoted to the discussion of 
prices of ready-mixed feeds, based on tables of monthly average 
pric(>s of leading brands in each of the subgroups already mentioned, 
viz., dairy feeds, stock feeds, horse and mule feeds, hog feeds, calf 
meal, and poultry feeds. 

The comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with the 
straight feeds is made in section 3 of this chapter. 

Food Administration Regulations. — Various regulations of the 
Food Administration applied to manufacturers, importers, and dis- 
tributors of feeds. These lines of business were brought under the 
licensing system by presidential proclamations, as follows: 

August 14, 1917. — Wheat and rye elevators and millers. 

* In some cases the statistics are not brought down as far as June, 1920, 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 105 

September 7, 1917. — Manufacturers of sugar, sugar sirups, and 
molasses. 

October 8, 1917.-.— Persons, firms, corporations, and associations 
engaged in the business of operating elevators, warehouses, or other 
places for the storage of corn, oats, barley, beans, rice, cotton seed, 
cottonseed cake and meal, or peanut meal. 

Persons, firms, etc., engaged in importing, manufacturing (including 
milling), or distributing oarley, oats, corn, rice, cotton seed, cotton- 
seed cake and meal, peanut meal, or soya-bean meal. 

January 10, 1918. — All persons, firms, corporations, and associa- 
tions engaged in any of the following lines of business : 

1. Importing, manufacturing, stormg, or distributing any commer- 
cial mixed feeds. 

2. Manufacturing feeds from or importing, storing, or distributing 
any of a long list of feeds or feed ingredients. 

3. Importing, manufacturing, storing, or distributing as feed any 
products or by-products of various grains and other commodities, 
except products or by-products whose importation, manufacture, 
storage, or distribution had already been covered by a license held 
by any such person, firm, corporation, or association.^ 

The Food Administration by special regulation (issued Jan. 28, 
1918, amended Oct. 1, 1918, and repealed Jan. 10, 1919) provided 
that licensees under the proclamation of January 10, 1918, should 
take no more than a reasonable profit on the sale of any feeding stuff 
over the average cost of the licensee's stock of any commodity on 
hand or under control not at that time contracted to be sold.^ 

By this ruling and by other similar regulations the general principle 
that no "more than a reasonable profit should be realized on sales of 
feeds was applied by the Food Administration to all feeds. 

Other more specific regulations dealing with the prices of certain 
feeds were issued. The more important of these special regulations 
are mentioned in connection with the discussion of the prices of the 
particular feeds. 

Section 2. Comparison of prices of straight feeds with one another 
and with farm products and all commodities. 

In this section the prices of different straight feeds are compared 
with one another, and since it would be confusing to extend the com- 

I)arison to include all the feeds for which price tables are given, a se- 
ection has been made of 10 important feeds. The tables of monthly 
average prices of these feeds will be found in the later sections of this 
chapter or in the appendix. The yearly averages for the years 1913 
to 1919, inclusive, and the averages for the first six months of 1920 
are summarized for convenience in Table 18. 

Besides the comparison of the prices of the selected feeds with one 
another, they are also compared with the prices of "farm products" 
and "all commodities," as published by the Bureau of Labor Statis- 
tics of the United States Department of Labor. This bureau com- 
piles statistics of wholesale prices of 327 commodities, "covering a 
wide range of raw and manufactured products," and publishes index 

3 United States Food Administration Special License Repilations I-B-1 and XXV-A-1; also Rulers and 
Regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of food commodities for 
domestic trade by persons subject to license, pp. 4-6, and Amendments and additions to same, pp. 25-27. 

s United States Food Administration Special License Regulations XXV-C, 5, 6, 7 (Rule 7). 



106 



COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 



numbers of prices for all commodities combined and also for nine 
subgroups, one of which is the ''farm products" group.'" 

In order to make the comparison of the prices of the selected feeds 
with the prices of farm products and all commodities as showm in the 
index nmubcrs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the monthly average 
prices of each feed have been reduced to relatives, using the same base 
as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, viz, the average price for the year 
1913. In other words, the average price for each selected feed for 
the year 1913 was taken as equal to 100 and the prices relative to this 
base were computed from the monthly and yearly average figures. 
The relatives as derived from the yearly averages are given in 
Table 18 following. 

Simple averages of the relative prices of the 10 feeds were computed, 
since tnere is no satisfactory basis for weighting the prices of the differ- 
ent feeds in accordance with their relative importance. These figures 
will be found in Appendix Table 1,^'' and the movement of relative 
prices as represented by these averages is shown graphically in the 
diaCTam opposite puge 110, which also shows the curves for prices of 
" all commodities,' the "farm products " group, and the average of 12 
typical mixed feeds. 

Table 18. — Average prices of 10 selected straight feeds in tons and relative prices, together 
with relative prices oj all commodities and farm products, by years, 191S-1919, and 
Jor the first hat J of 1920. 



1913.. 
1914. , 
1915. , 
1916. 
1917.. 
1918.. 
1919. 
1920 > 



com- 
modi- 
ties. 



Farm 
l)rod- 
ucts. 



122.31 
24.% 
26.23 
29.58 
59.01 
57.37 
57.08 



$23.48 
26.21 
30.68 
2S.85 
39.97 
48. 38 
44.69 
62.69 



20.36 
20.98 
32.94 
30.37 
39. .50 
47.67 



121.66 
24.90 
26.05 
27.53 
49.84 
55.17 
60.69 
64.58 



120.96 
23.38 
22. 08 
23.51 
38.06 
45.44 
55. 21 

'64.91 



Rice 
poU.sh, 



$21. 77 
24.16 
24.44 
26.27 

140.25 

156.41 
59. ,50 

< 57.96 



$16.30 $25.63 



16. 19 
20. 11 
19.79 
27.49 



24.98 
2.5. 40 
30.73 
40.41 
50,71 
61.32 
67.30 



Lin- 
soed 
meal. 



$25. 87 
28. 73 
33. 11 
34.22 
48. 02 
54.73 
67.22 
72.70 



13. 92 
17. 19 
27.96 
31.37 
34.96 
35.33 



RELATIVE PRICES. 



1913.... 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


1914.... 


100 


103 


112 


112 


115 


115 


112 


111 


99 


97 


111 


96 


108 


1915 


101 


105 


118 


131 


109 


120 


105 


112 


123 


99 


128 


89 


113 


1916.... 


124 


122 


133 


123 


113 


127 


112 


121 


121 


120 


132 


97 


120 


1917 


176 


189 


265 


170 


177 


230 


182 


' 1S5 


169 


158 


186 


157 


188 


1918.... 


196 


220 


257 


206 


163 


255 


217 


1 2,59 


159 


198 


212 


176 


210 


1919.... 


212 


234 


259 


190 


212 


280 


263 


273 


190 


239 


260 


197 


236 


1920"... 


259 


243 


273 


267 


236 


298 


•310 


<266 


263 


263 


281 


199 


268 



I Average for 11 months only. 
' Average January-June. 



3 Not including June. 
* January to April only. 



1 wit h feeds are the " farm product.^ ' ' group, 
! up of 91 commodities. The inde.x 



»<• The two subgroups which seem mo.stsui table torcompariso 
eaibracing 32 commodities, and the "food, etc., "group, which i 

numbers of the food group, however, in the main follow rather closely theinde.x numbers for all commodi- 
ties. Hence the comparison with tliis group has been omitted, and inde.x numbers are given only for "all 
commodities " and " farm products. " 

The method by which the inde.x numbers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are computed is described as 
follows: 

"In computing the index numbers the average monthly or yearly price of each article is multiplied 
by the estimated quantity of that article marketed in the census year of 1909. The different results are 
then a<lded for each group and for all groups combuied, giving the appro.xiiiu»te total value of commodi- 
ties in the month or year in question. These sums are then reduced to percentages of the 1913 sum, taken 
as the base. In this way each article has an influence on the result proportionate to its importance in the 
country's markets." (Monthy Labor Review, September. 1920, pp. 65-66.) 

» It was not considered nei'essary to show also the relative prices by months for each of the 10 selected 
feeds, since the absolute figures for each are given in tables either in the later sections of this chapter or in 
tile appendLx. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 107 

The table shows that the price of " all commodities " remained 
practically stationary from 1913 to 1915, but that there were marked 
increases in the years 1916 to 1919, inclusive, and in the first haK 
of 1920. The greatest increases were from 1916 to 1917 and from 
1919 to the first half of 1920. 

The farm products group showed a nearly similar movement from 
1913 to 1916, with more marked advances than those of all commodi- 
ties in 1917 and 1918. The increase in the index numbers of the 
two groups was about the same in 1919, but in the first half of 1920 
the increase in the price of farm products was slight as compared 
with that of all commodities. The index numbers JFor the first half 
of 1920 were 243 for the farm products group and 259 for all com- 
modities. It appears from these figures that the price of all commodi- 
ties for the first half of 1920 was slightly more and that of farm prod- 
ucts slightly less than two and a half times as high as the 1913 level. 

The price movement of the 10 selected feeds for which prices are 
shown in Table 18, with one exception (rice polish),'' also reached the 
maximum in the first half of 1920. 

The highest relative prices for these feeds, as shown in this table, 
ranged from 199for alfalfa meal to 3 10 for corn gluten feed. The rela- 
tive increase in the price of alfalfa meal, however, was much less than 
for the other feeds, and if this is left out of consideration, the range in 
maximum prices as shown in the relative numbers was from 256 to 
310. It will be noted that in the period of maximum prices (first 
half of 1920) all the feeds except alfalfa meal reached higher relative 
prices than the farm products group and all except alfalfa meal and 
wheat bran higher relative prices than all conunodities. Corn gluten 
feed and hominy feed were about three times as high as in 1913, and 
linseed meal, corn, and rice polish (year 1919), about two and three- 
quarters times as high, while oats, reground oat hulls and cottonseed 
meaP were only slightly higher than all commodities, and wheat 
bran was slightly lower. 

The price movement for the 10 feeds combined as represented in 
the simple averages of their relative prices was strikingly like that 
of the farm products group except for the first haK of 1920, when 
the index number for the feeds group was considerably higher than 
the farm products group. 

Prices of all the feeds increased greatly in 1917, as did also the 
prices of all commodities and the farm products group. Much the 
greatest advance was made in the price of corn, which doubled in 
1917, the next largest relative increase being in the price of hominy 
feed. In 1918, corn, wheat bran, and reground oat hulls declined 
in price, while all the other feeds made substantial advances. The 
price of wheat bran under the Food Administration regulation was 
generally conceded to be very low, c|uality considered, as compared 
with most other feeds. (See sec. 5.) There was a substantial 
increase in the price of this feed in 1919. The price of oats fell some- 
what in that year, corn prices remained almost stationary, and the 
f)rices of all the other feeds increased. As already stated all the 
eeds except rice polish reached maximum prices in the first half 
of 1920. 

* This may be only an apparent exception, since prices of rice polish for May and June, 1920, arelacldng. 

f> As pointed out below (p. 122), the prices of cottonseed meal for January, ' 913, to Jime, 1916, were for 41 
per cent protein meal, and from July, 1916, to June, 1920, for 36 per cent protein meal. The increase in prices 
in the later years, therefore, is somewhat understated in the tables in this report. 



108 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

Considerable difTerences appear in the movement of prices of dif- 
ferent feeds, but these niiojht naturally be expected, considering the 
diversity in the kinds of feeds represented in the table. It may be 
pointed out that in any year one or more feeds may be relatively 
abundant, while the supply of others is below normal. However, 
the increase in the price of a relatively scarce feed is likely to be 
materially checked on account of the facility with which one feed 
may be substituted for another within fairly wide limits. It may 
be said, in fact, that the price of any feed depends to an important 
degree upon the prices of other feeds which may be substituted for it. 

It is interesting to note in connection with the prices of by-product 
feeds that high prices in consequence of heavy demand do not neces- 
sarily stimulate production, smce normally the production of the 
by-products is dependent chiefly on the demand for the primary 
product or products. For example, the quantity of wheat feeds 
produced depends almost entirely upon the demand for flour. Con- 
sequently, it is quite possible to have a heavy demand for wheat 
feeds, accompanied by relatively high prices, without very much 
effect in encouraging an increased production of the feeds, if this 
strong demand for the by-products happens to coincide with a period 
of relatively slack demand for flour, the primary product of the mills. 

Section 3. Comparison of prices of commercial mixed feeds with 
prices of straight feeds, farm products, and all commodities. 

It would be practically out of the question to make a satisfactory 
comparison of the prices of any brand of mixed feed with the prices of 
the ingredients of which it is composed for any long period of time. 
Even if the ingredients were not numerous, changes in their prices are 
much too frequent, not to speak of the difficulty which would arise from 
frequent changes in formulas. (See sec. 16.) No such comparison 
has been attempted in this report. However, a comparison satis- 
factory for broad, general purposes may be made by bringing together 
the relative prices of a representative number of commercial mixed 
feeds and the relative prices of the selected straight feeds. A further 
comparison with the mdex numbers of prices of farm products and 
all commodities will be useful. 

In order to make this comparison the I'clative prices of 12 leading 
and well-advertised brands of commercial mixed feeds were com- 
puted from the monthly average prices on the same basis as the rela- 
tive prices of the 10 straight feeds considered in the preceding section, 
i. e., by using the average price of the year 1913 as a base or equal to 
100."" 

The relative prices of the 12 brands were also averaged by months. 
In the absence of any satisfactory method of weighting, simple 
averages were computed, as in the case of the 10 selcctcu straight 
feeds. These monthly averages will be found in Appendix Table 1, 
while the yearly averages of the relative prices of the 12 mixed feeds 
are given in Table 19 which follows, in connection with the relative 
prices of each brand.' Table 19 also shows the averages of the 
relative prices of the 10 selected straight feeds by years and the 

» In selecting these brands it was of course necessary to take only those for wliieh llio price records were 
complete back to the beginning of the year 1913. The selection was therefore rather restricted because 
several manufacturers were unable to fiirnish records of prices bcRinniug as early as January, 1913. For 
this reason also hoe feeds and calf meals are not represented in the relaliye j rices. 

' The monthly rdatlve prices for the several brands have been omitted. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



109 



corresponding index numbers for the farm products group and all 

coniniodities. It is possible to follow the averages of the relative 
prices of the 12 mixed feeds in detail by months in the diagram 
facing page 1 10, which likewise shows the curves for the group of 10 
straight feeds and for the farm products group and all commodities. 

Table 19. — Average prices of 12 brands oj commercial mixed feeds in tons and relative 
prices, together with relative prices of 10 straight feeds, all commodities and farm pro- 
duets, by years, 1913-1919, and for the first half of 19^0. 



Year. 


Dairy feeds.' 


Stock feeds .2 


Horse feeds.' 


No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. 3. 


No. 4. 


No. 5. 


No. 6. 


No. 7. 


1913 . 


$30.43 
32.67 
33.03 
34.69 
52.06 
&4.26 
72.85 
79.42 


$30.87 
32.40 
32.24 
34.52 
51.94 
62.40 
69.92 
75.66 


$25.58 
26.27 
26.20 
28.17 
40.92 
53.90 
50. 48 
57.44 


$26.54 
29.25 
30.57 
32.19 
53.06 
57.75 
60.32 
67. T5 


$24.35 
26.03 
26.90 
29.88 
50.00 
55. 18 
55.21 
61.81 


$26.22 
28.09 
27.57 
30.16 
43.39 
58.62 
52.,S5 
64.65 


$25.54 




27.67 


1915. 


28.29 


1916 


31.81 




51.69 




57.43 




55.47 


1920 ' . . . 


60.86 







RELATIVE PRICES. 





100 
107 
109 
114 
171 
211 
239 
261 


100 
105 
104 
112 
168 
202 
226 
245 


100 
103 
102 
110 
160 
211 
197 
225 


100 
110 
115 
121 
200 
218 
227 
255 


100 
107 
110 
123 
205 
227 
227 
254 


100 
107 
105 
115 
165 
224 
202 
247 


100 


1914 


108 






1916 


125 


1917 


202 




225 


1919. 


217 


1920' 


238 






Year 


Scratch feeds.< 


Mash feeds.' 


Average, 
12 mixed 
feeds.' 


Average, 

10 
straight 
feeds .<> 


Farm 
prod- 
ucts.' 


AU 




No. 8. 


No. 9. 


No. 10. 


No. 11. 


No. 12. 


modi ties." 


1913 


$34.52 
37.44 
39.87 
42.25 
71.86 
78.22 
74.14 
81.14 


$31.48 
33.88 
35.40 
38.17 
66.23 
73.60 
74.32 
78.27 


$28.98 
31.64 
33.57 
35.99 
64.49 
70.79 
69.71 
77.75 


$37.14 
38.61 
39.17 
40.21 
58.83 
72.13 
73.26 
81.67 


$34.48 
36.88 
37.55 
39.85 
59.32 
68.28 
74.88 
80.90 










1914 










1915 










1916 










1917 










1918 










1919 










1920' 


■ 



















RELATIVE PRICES. 



1913 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


1914 


108 


108 


109 


104 


107 


107 


108 


103 


100 


1915 


115 


112 


116 


105 


109 


109 


113 


105 


101 


1916 


122 


121 


124 


108 


116 


118 


120 


122 


124 


1917 


208 


210 


223 


158 


172 


187 


188 


189 


176 


1918 


227 


234 


244 


194 


198 


218 


210 


220 


196 


1919 


215 


236 


241 


197 


217 


220 


236 


234 


212 


1920' 


235 


249 


268 


220 


235 


244 


288 


243 


259 



1 Appendix Table 7, brands Nos. 1 and 2. 

• Appendix Table 9, brands Nos. 5 and 6. 

> Appendix Table 10, brands Nos. 1, 3, and 4. 

* Appendix Table 13, brands Nos. 1 , 3, and 4. 
^ Appendix Table 15, brands Nos. 1 and 2. 

6 Appendix Table 1. 
' Average January- June. 



No great importance is to be attached to the comparison of the 
absolute prices of different brands of mixed feeds with one another 
on account of the great differences in their composition. A serious 



110 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

obstacle to the comparison even of the relative prices of these feeds 
is found in the fact that most manufacturers frequently change the 
formulas of their feeds, so that a feed with a given brand name is not 
necessarily the same at one time as at another, and in fact may be 
much different at difi'erent times, although the same giiaranteed 
chemical analysis may be maintained for a long period. The 
significance of differences in the prices of various feeds can be under- 
stood only when the exact composition of each is known. Keeping 
these limitations in mind, the following points, brought out by an 
inspection of Table 19, may he noted: 

Average prices in 1913 for the brands shown in the table ranged 
from about $25 to $35, with one brand as high as $37. No 
radical changes occurred in the next three years, though there was 
some advance in the price of all brands. As in the case of straight 
feeds, the year 1917 marked the first great advance in the price of 
mixed feeds. Average prices in that year ranged from about $41 
to $72. By 1919 the price of nearly every brand was at least double 
that of the 1913 average, while most bi'ands showed even greater 
increases. All brands made substantial advances in the first half 
of 1920 over the average price for the year 1919. Feeds which sold 
for about $25 per ton in 1913 brought, on the average, around $60 
to $65 in the first half of 1920. The highest priced feeds shown in 
the table advanced from about $35 in 1913 to over $80 in 1920. 

These advances are recorded in the index numbers, which ranged 
for the year 1919 from 197 to 241, and for the first half of 1920 from 
220 to 268. The corresponding index numbers for the 12 brands 
combined were 220 and 244, respectively. In 1919 just half the 
brands had index numbers higher than the average, and for the first 
half of 1920 there were seven above the average. 

The table shows a striking correspondence between the movement 
of relative prices of the group of 12 mixed feeds and the farm products 
group, the only difi'ercnce worth noting being in 1919, when the index 
number for the farm products group was 14 points higher than that 
of the mixed-feed group. 

The relative prices of the mixed-feed group also show close corre- 
spondence with those of the group of 10 straight feeds from 1914 
to 1918, inclusive, though straight feeds were somewhat lower rela- 
tively in 1918. In 1919 the advance in the relative price of the 
mixed-feed group was considerably less and in the first naJf of 1920 
much less than in the straight-feeds group. 

Prices of mixed feeds showed advances relatively greater in 1917 and 
1918 than those of all commodities, but in the first half of 1920 the 
advance in the relative price of all commodities was much greater 
than in the mixed-feed group. 

The movement of the relative prices of these different groups is 
shown graphically and in detail by months in the diagram opposite. 

Section 4. Prices of corn and oats. 

Corn and oats are of great importance in the feed business. The 
prices of corn are of particular importance, since the extent to which 
other feeds are used is largely dependent upon them. Therefore corn 
prices are fiequently referred to as a barometer of prices of other 
leeds. Oats are not only widely used as a straight feed, but furnish 
by-products which ai-e used in large quantities in mixed feeds. 







"2 <Vj 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 

^ 


•5. 

... .1 






















1 1 


Q 

SI 




Jt 


















S 




^ '^ 


















q 






















z 




n ii 


















u 




- -1 






















Q 


















c 


























s 


□ 


















c 


1 


LTl 


















u 




<r 






















n "^ 




















5 


^ 


— ^ 
















1- 


1 


m s: 


















2 


5 Jll 


"1 tr 


















C 


^ ■? 


















2 


i'^ 




















Ll 


T 




















^ 


n 


















C 


3 


2 


















^ 


n' ^ 


n 


















I 


is 


LP 


















. 


§^ 


n 1= 


















c 


_ -1 




; 
















m "^ 




















' iP' 




















s 


;e; 


















<: 


^ 


T 




' 














3 


'^^ 






! 














U 


—> 




















^T 




















c 


J 


2 






















C 


















c 




V fc 


ir 


















L 




"1 ^ ts 


N- <r 


















^ 


- N 




h. -> 




"^ 


















tn ";> 




















1 m 






'' 














2 






t 




; 














t 




i^^ 


■? 




■ 














2 


~ 


ij_ 


















U 


_ 


-> 




















^ 


'^1 


□ 


















c 




^ 






















^ c 


















c 


, 


\i ^ ll 


LT 


















L 






in "i^ 




















-in 




= -^ 




• 
















5 s 

■' m 


m "> 




, 
















"' T 






















>3: 


















<: 


: 


^ 


















5 


_ 


L.- 


















b 


_ 


^ 






















C 


















C 


_ 


7 




1 
















z. 


- 


















c 


-. 


^1 


ir 


















1 


■ 


10 a: 




















^12 


w _^ 




1 


















m ~ 




















^01 


Ul ^ 




1 
















ei;; 




















<: 


: 


If 


^ 




















L 


|j_ 


















L 


l- 


-1 






















It 1^ 


- r 




















7 


^ 


z 




















- 




















3 


It 




















1 


1 
^1 


tt ^ 




















^^ 












































^m 


Ul ^ 








































t 


E 


? 




















S 


R 






















i_ 


^ 






















T 


^ 


r 




















ID 




7 




















a 




n 




















D 




ir 


1 


















n 


^ 


m "^ 




















J-(*) 






1 




















^ 


m ~ 


3 


















^m 


s 


Ul , 




















^m 

c 


ft; 


a 




















^ 






















^ 


5 


n 






















t^ 


" 


1 




















If 


05 c 




5 f 


^ £ 


5, 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ "5 


















t1 


"il 


t:^ 


^ 


"5 


^1 


'\] 


^NJ 


\i 



0, 


"5i 


E5 


.ta 


fcl 


S 


^ 


tl 


^ 


«d 


\ 


'<! 


"o 


^J 


"5 


^\] 



WHOLESALE PRKIES. 



Ill 



The following table gives monthly average prices of cash corn and 
oats of contract grade on the Chicago market, the figures being simple 
averages of the means of the daily low and high quotations as pub- 
lished in the annual reports of the Chicago Board of Trade. 

Table 20. — Average prices per bushel oj cash com and cash oats of contract grade on the 
Chicago Board oj Trade, by months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 




SO. 49 
.50 
.51 
.56 
.57 
.61 
.62 
.74 
.75 
.70 
.73 
.71 


JO. 62 
.62 
.66 
.67 
.70 
.71 
.71 
.81 
.78 
.73 
.71 
.65 


10.72 
.78 
.72 
.76 
.76 
.74 
.79 
.79 
.73 
.64 
.65 
.72 


$0.76 
.76 
.74 
.76 
.75 
.74 
.81 
.86 
.87 
.96 
1.00 
.92 


$0.99 
1.01 
1.12 
1.45 
1.64 
1.71 
2.04 
1.97 
2.09 
1.98 
2.10 
1.73 


$1.78 
1.75 
1.72 
1.66 
1.63 
1.59 
1.66 
1.69 
1.59 
1.39 
1.37 
1.45 


$1.42 
1.32 
1.50 
1.64 
1.76 
1.79 
1.98 
1.97 
1.54 
1.42 
1.53 
1.52 


S1.53 




1.48 




1.61 




1.73 


May 


2.01 




1.90 






























Year 


.62 


.70 


.73 


.83 


1.65 


1.81 


1.62 


■1.71 







January 

February.. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 

October 

November. 
December. . 

Year. 



$0.33 $0 


38 


$0.53 


$0.48 


$0.56 


$0.81 


$0.67 


.33 


39 


.58 


.47 


.54 


.86 


.60 


.33 


39 


.57 


.44 


.58 


.91 


.64 


.35 


38 


.57 


.46 


.66 


.88 


.71 


.38 


40 


.53 


.46 


.69 


.76 


.70 


.40 


39 


.48 


.39 


.66 


.77 


.70 


.39 


37 


.54 


.41 


.76 


.76 


.78 


.41 


42 


.55 


.44 


.62 


.70 


.75 


.42 


48 


.37 


.46 


.39 


.72 


.70 


.39 


47 


.37 


.49 


.59 


.69 


.72 


.38 


49 


.38 


.55 


.65 


.73 


.75 


.39 


48 


.43 


.51 


.76 


.72 


.84 


.38 


42 


.49 


.46 


.64 


.78 


.71 



1 Average January-June. 

Prices of corn. — The monthly averages of the daily mean prices 
of corn from the beginning of 1913 to the middle of 1916 ranged 
from 49 cents to 81 cents per bushel, while the yearly average in- 
creased from 62 cents in 1913 to 73 cents in 1915. Prices advanced 
considerably in the last half of 1916, bringing the average for that 
year up to 83 cents. The year 1917 was marked by a very great in- 
crease in prices, the average for the year being double that of the 
year 1916, while the average price for November reached $2.10 per 
bushel. The following causes nave been assigned for the high prices 
of 1917: The small corn crop of 1916 and the small amount shipped 
from the farms, the demand for hogs, the demand by distillers, and 
the short wheat crop of 1916 in the United States and also the short 
corn crop in Argentina. 

While prices of corn declined in 1918, the prices of the first three 
months were much higher than those of the corresponding months 
of 1917, and the yearly average was only slightly lower than that of 
the preceding year. The 1917 crop was large, but of very poor 
quality, with only 60 per cent merchantable, as compared with 84 
per cent for the previous crop. The amount shipped from the farms 



112 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

was large, but shipments were late on account of shortage of freight 
cars and cold weather.* 

The range in monthly average prices was greater in 1919 than in 
the preceding year, but the yearly averages were almost identical for 
the two years. The 1918 corn crop was even smaller than that of 
1916. The proportion merchantable was about the same for the two 
crops, and much greater than for the 1917 crop. However, the per- 
centage of the crop which left the county in wnich it was grown was 
very low for the 1918 crop,, viz, 14.5 as compared with 22.1 per cent 
for the 1917 crop and 17.6 per cent for the 1916 crop. Corn prices 
were very high in the first half of 1920, though the 1919 crop was not 
much smaller than the record crop of 1917 and the proportion mer- 
chantable was the largest in 10 years (86.9 per cent)." On the other 
hand, onljr 16.3 per cent of the crop left the county where grown, 
largely on account of the car shortage in the spring of 1920. The 
average price for May, 1920, reached the $2 mark, the nighest average 
shown in the table except for three months in 1917. 

Prices of oats. — The average price of oats ranged between 33 
cents and 49 cents per bushel in the years 1913 and 1914, with yearly 
averages of 38 cents and 42 cents, respectively. Prices were high in 
the first eight months of 1915, on account of the short supply, but 
there was a decided break when the new crop came on the market 
in the fall. The average price for the year 1915 was considerably 
above the prices of 1913 and 1914, while the average for the year 

1916 was slightly lower than that for 1915. There was a decided 
advance in prices in 1917, there being a notable increase in April 
and May, following the declaration of war,'" while the average price 
in July went to 76 cents per bushel. 

There was a good crop in 1917 and the quality was very high, but 
prices in 1918 were on a high level. The monthly averages ran as 
high as 91 cents for March, and the average for the year was 78 cents 
per bushel. 

The 1918 crop was only slightly smaller than that of the preceding 
year, and the quality was very good, though not as high as for the 

1917 crop. Prices on the whole were somewhat lower in 1919 than 
in 1918, with a maximum monthly average of 84 cents and a yearly 
average of 71 cents. 

The 1919 crop was considerably smaller than that of the two years 
immediately preceding and about the same as that of 1916. The 
quality (84.7 per cent) was lower than it had been for several years 
and much lower than the quality of the 1917 and 1918 crops." Prices 
in the first half of 1920 reached record heights, the average for the 
six months being $1, while the June average was $1.17 per bushel, 
or three and a half times the price of the early months of 1913. 

The principal cause of these high prices was the shortage of cars.'^ 

Section 5. Prices of flour-mill by-products. 

The great importance of the by-products or offal of the flour mills 
both as straight feeds and as ingredients of commercial mixed feeds 

' War Industries Board, Price Bulletin No. 10, pp. 8 and 9. 

> Department of Agriculture Yearbook, liU9, p. 513. 

1" War Industries Board, Price UiUletm No. 11, pp. 6 and 7. 

■' Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1919, p. 535. 

n TIieIollo\ving statement was made in the Department of Agriculture's Market Reporter, June 19, 1920 
(p. 394): "The trade generallv believes tliat but for the car shortage the advance in the oats market would 
have been impossible. Certainly the prices paid for cash oats would not have been paid but for the light 
receipts." 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



113 



has already been noted. (Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) Among these by- 
products wheat bran and standard middlings are particularly impor- 
tant on account of the large production. 

The Commission secured price statistics of mill feeds from one of 
the leading Minneapolis millers for the period January, 1914, to 
June, 1920, inclusive. This record covers five wheat-flour by- 
products and rye middlings, and is made up of prices on the 1st, lOth, 
and 20th of each month. These are base prices or so-called "limits." 
The meaning of this term will be made clear by the following descrip- 
tion of the method followed by the company, and presumably by the 
other large millers of Minneapolis, in selling mill by-products: 

The miller who receives a large order for flour knows that when 
this is manufactured he will have a large quantity of ofi'al which he 
must market almost immediately, since storage facilities are limited. 

This offal will amount approximately to 30 per cent of the weight 
of the wheat used in making the flour. (See Chap. Ill, sec. 2.) 
The price of the flour will be made taking into consideration the 
current prices of mill feeds. Taking these prices as a basis for 
quotations, the miller gets into touch with prospective buyers, and 
feeling out the market, sells at the best price he can get the cjuantities 
of the different feeds he expects to turn out in filhng the order for 
the flour. If the market is in his favor, the price made may be sliojhtly 
higher than his base price, while if the demand is relatively slack, he 
may be forced to take a price slightly lower than this base price. ^^ 

While these "limits" are not necessarily the actual selling prices, 
it is understood that the actual prices do not differ from them on the 
average more than 50 cents a ton. 

The figures furnished by this company were converted into monthly 
averages and supplemented for the year 1913 by average prices 
computed from low and high qiiotations for Wednesday of each week, 
published by the Minneapmis Daily Market Record.'* These monthly 
averages are shown in Appendix Table 2. The yearly averages for 
each year, 1913-1919, inclusive, and the averages for the first half 
of 1920, are summarized in the following table: 



Table 21. 



-Average prices per ton of mill feeds, sacked, /. o. b. Minneapolis, by years, 
1913-1919 inclusive, and for the first halj oj 19S0. 



Year. 


Wheat, 
bran. 


Standard 
middlings. 


Wheat 
mixed 
feed. 


Flour 
middlings. 


Red dog. 


Rye 
middlings. 


1913 


$18. (i3 
21.34 
20.36 
20.98 
32.94 
30.37 
39.50 
47.67 


W9.68 
21.89 
21.89 
22.71 
36.44 
32.44 
45.11 
51.78 




$22.57 
25.61 
26.48 
27.25 
45.39 
34.85 
51.89 
57.89 


$2J.55 
27.51 
29.28 
30.19 
51.53 
37.34 
58.56 
63.67 




1914 


»23.76 
23.86 
24.17 
38.97 
33.05 
49.22 
63.42 




1915 




1916 




1917. 




1918 




1919. 




19201 









<■ Average January-June. 

» It is not to be xmderstood that the entire output of the large mills is sold in this way. They dispose of 
pan of their output on long-time contracts calling for future deliveries. 

'^ A comparison of average prices from the two sources for the years 1914 and 1915 shows in the main a 
close correspondence for these years, and indicates that the Record prices are satisfactory for a*ie in supple- 
menting the figures furnished by the milling company. Figures for wheat mixed feed and rye middlings 
are not given in the table for the year 1913, smce quotations on these feeds are not published by the Minne- 
apolis Daily Market Record. 



114 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

Prices op wheat bran and standard RrroDUNGs, Mtnneapoiis 
MARKET. — Period ririor to Government control. — The prices of wheat 
bran and standarfl middlings fluctuated within rather narrow limits 
from the beginning of 1913 until near the close of 1916. About the 
middle of 1916 a rapid increase in the prices of these feeds began 
which culminated in April, 1917, in prices about double those of the 
preceding July. There was a reaction in prices, greater in bran than 
m standard middlings, following the entrance of the United States 
into the war. This was followed by a recovery in July and August, 
and in the latter month the price of standard middlings went to a 
very high point (average $45.33), but this increase was of short 
duration. 

Period of Government control. — On August 14, 1917, wheat and 
rye elevators and millers were recjuired to be licensed.'* Under 
rules and regulations promulgated August 24, 1917, governing the 
conduct of flour millers operating imder agreement with the United 
States Food Administrator, it was provided that no miller should 
thereafter take any profit on feed in excess of 50 cents per ton.'" 

By regulation of the Food Administration, effective December 25, 
1917, it was provided that no licensed flour miller should sell wheat 
mill feeds at prices in excess of figures to be determined as follows: 
The bulk prices of bran per ton of 2,000 pounds at the mill, in car- 
loads, in no case should exceed 38 per cent of the average cost to 
such mill of one ton of wheat at the mill, which cost of wheat should 
be the average cost as shown by the previous month's record of that 
mill. Differentials above the price of bran were provided as follows: 
Shorts or standard middlings, $2; mixed feeds, $4; flour middlings, 
$9; red dog, $15 per ton." 

It was further provided by regulation also effective December 25, 
1917, that no licensed flour miller should use more than 264 pounds 
of 58 povmds to a bushel or heavier clean wheat in making a barrel 
(196 pounds) of flour.'* A schedule was published further fixing the 
maximum amount of wheat of other test weights to be used in making 
196 pounds of flour." 

This increase in the percentage of extraction of flour from wheat- 
materially reduced the ciuantity of middlings and red dog produced, 
and in May, 1918, the differentials on flour middlings and red dog 
were reduced to $2 per ton and the differential on mixed feed to 
$1.25 per ton.-" The price of bran was still to be determined as pro- 
vided under rule 19, wliicli became effective December 25, 1917, but 
a flat differential of $2 was to be added to this price for standard 
middlings, flour middlings, and red dog.^' 

" U.S.r.A. Special License Regulations No. II, preface-l. 

'• U.S.F.,\. Milling Division Circular No. 1 M; also " Rules and regulations govemiug the importation, 
manubcture, storage, and distrilmtion of food commodities tor domestic trade by persoas subject to 
license"— Rule 13 relating to grain elevators, grain dealers, and grain millers (Series B, eticctivo Nov. 1, 
1917). 

1" Amendments and additions to rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, 
and distribution of food couiuiodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license. Series B, 
supplement, rule 19, p. 9. 

Tno reason for establishing this rule was given as follows: 

"This rule aims to establish a relation between the price of mill feeds and the price of wheat. It is made 
necessary by the uinisually high price of coarse grains, which has caused luiprecedented demand for mill 
feeds." (FecdingstuJTs, January, 191S, p. 42.) 

•8 Amendments and additions to ndes and regulations governing the importation, manufactiu^e, storage, 
and disi ribul ion of food commodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license. Series B, 
supplement, rnle 17, p. 9. 

» I). S. F. A. Special License Regulations No. II-A, rule M. S. 4. 

*> U. S. Food Administration press release No. 9.'»4, May 20, 1918. 

" Food Administration press release No. 954, May 20, 191s; Price Current Grain Reporter, May 29, 1918, 
p. 43; Feedingstufis, May, 191S, p. 33. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 115 

By regulation effective July 22, 1918, the Food Administration 
adopted the plan of issuing to flour millers maximum fair-price sched- 
ules for flour and feed "established with relation to the guaranteed 
firice basis for wheat." Any sales of flour or feed in excess of these 
air prices were regarded as a violation of the rule against sales of 
flour or feed at more than a reasonable advance over the average 
purchase price of the wheat." Under this plan Minneapolis prices 
August 1, 1918, on carload lots, bulk, at mill, were as follows: Bran, 
$23.36; mixed feed, $24.61; middhngs, shorts, and red dog, $25.36.^^ 

The effect of the limitations of the margins of profit on wheat feeds 
in August, 1917, is seen in the prices of these feeds from September 
to November as compared with August, but the price of bran ad- 
vanced sharply in December, that of standard middlings and wheat 
mixed feed much less, while there was a slight increase in the prices 
of flour middlings and red dog.-* 

This advance in prices was checked by the Food Administraticm's 
ruling (effective Dec. 25, 1917) relating to prices of flour and mill 
feeds, to which reference has already been made. The effect is seen 
in the average prices for January, 1918, as compared with those for 
December, 1917. Bran declined from an average price of $40 to 
$32.43, and standard middlings from $40.67 to $34.43. The other 
mill feeds showed marked reductions, the most decided decrease being 
in the average prices of red dog, from $58 to $46.77. (Appendix 
Table 2.) 

The full effect of the action of the Food Administration was not 
felt, however, until about May, 1918. A combination of circum- 
stances was responsible for this condition. The flour millers were 
allowed to fill outstanding contracts at the higher prices stipulated 
in the contracts. Under normal conditions the bulk of the feeds 
delivered under these contracts would have been out of the way 
within 60 days and much of it within 30 days. However, the ex- 
tremely bad transportation situation in the early months of 1918 
resulted in a short supply of wheat at the mills and consequently in 

freatly reduced production of flour and feeds, and there was much 
elay in deliveries on these contracts. As a result high-priced wheat 
feeds were still on the market through February, March, and April, 
and in many sections into May. G. A. Chapman, head of the Food 
Administration's feed division, referring to this situation, said: 

Between the oversales on the part of the mills and the delay in the railroads in 
delivering to dealers it seemed as though there would be no end to these high-priced 
wheat feeds." 

The general effect of the Food Administration's regulations in 1918 
may be gathered from a comparison of the average prices for that 
year with the averages of the years 1917 and 1919. (Table 21.) The 
average prices of these feeds in 1918 were kept below those of 1917 
in the face of a very heavy demand. 

32 U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations, No. Il-A, rule M. S. 11 and note on " Fair price schedules." 

M FeedingstulTs, August,19is,p.29. It should be noted that these are prices for feeds in bulk, while the 
pricesin Table 21 and Appendix Table 2 are for saclced feeds. At this time tho cost ofsaclis would account 
for a difference of about Stiper ton between the two prices. (See FeedingstulTs, July, 1918, p. 26.) 

2* The Northwestern Miller, commenting on the situation in the Minneapolis market, m its issue of 
December 5, 1917, p. 734, said: 

' ' Mill feed is exceedingly strong and active. At a time when price reductions are usually seen, the market 
has strengthened and each succeeding day witnesses further advances. Mill quotations, however, are no 
criterion as to current values. Few have anything to ofTer, and asking prices show a wide range. Some 
ofthelargermilUngcompanieshavenot apoundoffeed tooffer. Heretofore they have been seihng a little 
in mixed cars with flour, but within tho last week they have notified their salesmen not to accept any more 
orders." 

^ Feedingstuffs, .luly, 1918, p. 25. Presumably the.se high prices on delayed shipments on contractsare 
not reflected in the figures in .\ppendix Table 2, since these are understood to bo base pnces for new business. 



116 COMMERCIAL I'EKDS. 

Period followiiuj withdraiml of Government control. — The Food 
Administration announced December 19, 1918, that all flour-milling 
regulations, including fair price schedules, were canceled.-" 

This announcement had an immediate effect on the prices of 
mill feeds. The prices of bran at once advanced $10 to $15 a ton 
and some grades of middlings as much as $25 a ton. These advances 
were referred to in the trade press as the sharpest on record in mill 
feeds." The prices went still higher before the end of the month, 
and on January 2, 1919, both bran and middlings were selling at $50.^* 

It should be pointed out in this connection that the price of bran 
under the Food Administration reo;ulations was generally conceded to 
have been very low as compared with other feeds. Mr. Chapman 
made the statement that wheat feeds were really "a gold dollar for 
70 cents," if feed values were taken into consideration.-" 

The extremely high prices of January, 1919, stimulated the use 
of substitutes, particularly corn and oats, which declined in price 
at this time. Unusually mild weather, which permitted the grazing 
of cattle in some sections, also contributed to the falling off of the 
demand for wheat feeds.'"' The price of bran and standard middlings 
declined from $50 per ton on January 20 to $42, February 1, and 
$37, February 20. Standard middlings reached an even higher 
level in August and September, 1919, tJian in January, the average 
price for August being $53. On the other hand, bran did not agam 
advance during that year beyond a monthly average of $41.33. 
(Appendix Table 2.) Taking the year as a wnole bran prices were 
about $9 higher in 1919 than in 1918 and standard middlings more 
than $12 higher. 

The first half of 1920 was marked by still higher prices for bran 
and middlings, the averages for this period being, respectively, 
$47.67 and $51.78. The highest prices for the whole perioa of seven 
and a half years were reached in May, when the averages were 
$52.67 for bran and $57.33 for standard middlings. These figures 
may be contrasted with the minimum monthly averages of the 
year 1913, viz, $16.35 for bran and $16.70 for standard middlings. 
It will be noted that the maximum prices of 1920 were more than 
three times as high for liran and nearly three and a half times as 
hi^i for standard middlings as the minimum prices of 1913. 

Prices of wheat mixed feeds, flour middlings, and red dog, 
Minneapolis. — Wheat mixed feeds, Hour middlings, and red dog 
are all higher-priced jjroducts than bran and standard middlings, 
but quantitatively they are of much less importance.-" It is there- 

2« U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations 1 1, tiUe 1 (a). 

" Modern Miller, Dec. 21, I'JIS, p. 3G: Weekly Nortliwestem Miller, Dec. 2.i, 1918, pp. HIT, Ills. 

»8 The Minneapolis correspondent of the Modern Miller, commenting on tliis advance in prices, said; 
" Never before in the history of the Minneapolis flour trade has bran reached present prices, and alUiough 
the trade is complaining of tno advance, the mills arc unable to take care of the rctniirements of the present." 
(Modern MiUer, Jan. 11, 1919, pp. .37, .38.) 

29 Fecdingstuffs, July, 1918, p. 10. .V Hour uiilkT coiiuneuling on llic niill-fccd situation during the 
period of Ciovornmcnt control mudi' I lie f^iUimini; sLili'mcnt, whuli is iilso iiitcrcslinj; in Ihis connection: 
"During the period of Governmciil emit ml, wlun ilic iiriiisuf wlicai feeds wire lixed ;il n liasisso mndi 
materially lower than coarse grain feed, Imyers were in the market ^ery exleiisixciy who ncN'er had pre- 
viously handled mill feeds and prolial)ly never will handle them again. Tiiis is now a tiling of the past, 
however." (Modern Miller, Jan. 11, 1919, p. 37.) 

so Modern MiUcr, Jan. M, 1919. p. 38, and Feb. 1, 1919, p. 43. 

" The figures of production of the several wheat (lour by-products are not available for the Minneapolis 
market as a whole, but the iiiillin)/ ei.mpany which furnished the prices which are averaged in appendix 
Table 2 also gave its nroiliiri 11 111 [;iii ins for the several mill feeds for a period of years. 

The figures show tnat of i le iirLin iie production of wheat feeds by this company the total output of 
mixed feed, flour middlinj;;. ainl leil iln^; combined was as foUows; 19ii, 14.7 per cent; 191.'i, 12.1 per cent; 
1916, 11.8 per cent; 1917, 9.S per cent; 1918, 8.9 per cent; 1919, 13.6 per cent; and 1920 (first 5 months) 
12.5 per cent. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



117 



fore not necessary to discuss the price movements of these feeds at 
length. However, a general compai'ison of their prices with those 
of the last-named feeds may be of interest. 

The following table shows the relation between the prices of the 
several wheat-flour by-products as shown in yearly averages. The 
yearly average prices of wheat bran are given, and the amount and 
per cent by which the average price of each of the other feeds ex- 
ceeded the price of bran. This table shows that when the prices 
of these feeds reached the high levels (1917 and 1919), the spread 
between the prices of the other wheat feeds and bran not only in- 
creased in absolute amount, but also that the per cent of the spread 
to the base price of bran was higher in those years than in the earlier 
years, when conditions were more nearly normal. This indicates a 
relatively high demand or short supply (or both) of the other wheat 
feeds as compared with bran in the years of high prices — 1917 and 
1919. The increase in the percentages for red dog in these years 
was particularly marked. It is further noteworthy that for the 
first six months of 1920, while the high prices still continued, the per- 
centage of spread between the other feeds and bran were more 
nearly like those of the earlier years. 

Table 22. — Comparison of the prices per ton of wheat bran with the prices of other wheat 
Jeeds, by years, 191S-1919, inclusive, and for the first half of 1920} 





Average 
price 
wheat 
bran. 


Excess of price over price of wheat bran. 


Year. 


Standard middlings. 


Mixed feed. 


Flour middlings. 


Red dog. 




Amount. 


Percent. 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


1913 


$18. 63 
21.34 
20.36 
20.98 
32.94 
30.37 
39.50 
47.67 


$1.05 
.55 
1.53 
1.73 
3.50 
2.07 
5.61 
4.11 


5.6 
2.6 
7.5 
8.2 

10.6 
6.8 

14.2 
8.6 






$3.94 
4.27 
6.12 
6.27 

12. 45 
4.48 

12.39 

10.22 


21.1 
20.0 
30.1 
29.9 
37.8 
14.8 
31.4 
21.4 


85.92 
6.17 
8.92 
9.21 

18.59 
6.97 

19.06 

16.00 


31.8 


1915 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920> 


$2.42 
3.50 
3.19 
6.03 
2.68 
9.72 
5.75 


11.3 
17.2 
15.2 
18.3 
8.8 
24.6 
12.1 


28.9 
43.8 
43.9 
56.4 
23.0 
4S.3 
33.6 



' Based on figures in Appendix Table 2. 



i Average January-June. 



Section 6. Prices of hominy feed. 

.Statistics of prices of white hominy feed in bulk were secured from 
two of the leading manufacturers. The statistics furnished by both 
these companies are in the form of monthly averages, and are stated 
to be true averages computed by dividing the total proceeds from the 
month's sales by the tonnage sold. These two companies operate 
plants at middle-western points. One furnished statistics of prices 
I. o. b. mill at Indianapolis; the other gave prices on the New York 
City freight rate basis. The statistics furnished by these two manu- 
facturers are given in Appendix Table 3. This table also gives a 
record of prices on the Boston freight rate basis, the figures being 
simple averages of quotations (1913 and 1914) and of actual sales 
prices (1915-1920) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month, fur- 
nished by a leading jobber. 



118 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



The following is a summary of the yearly averages of prices f . o. b. 
Indianapolis: 1913, $21.66; 1914, $24.90; 1915, $26.05; 1916, $27.53; 
1917, $49.84; 1918, $55.17; 1919, $60.69; 1920 (January-June), 
$64.58. 

It will be noted that there was a gradual advance in prices of 
hominy feed from 1913 to 1916, inclusive, the increase in the yearly 
averages being nearly $6, or more than 25 per cent. From the begin- 
ning of 1913 to the middle of 1916 the range in average monthly prices 
f. o. b. Indianapolis was from $18 to $28.35. (Appendix Table 3.) 
About the middle of 1916 a rapid increase in prices began, which 
lasted with few interruptions until March, 1918. In June, 1916, the 
average price f. o. b. Indianapolis was .$24.25. This had doubled by 
April, 1917, and by March, 1918, it had advanced 160 per cent, 
reachmg $63.55. There was a sharp break in prices in April, and the 
May average was $16 per ton under the high March average. Prices 
fluctuated considerably in the later months of 1918, and the average 
for the year was over $5 a ton above the average for 1917.^'* 

The year 1919 was marked by wide fluctuations in the prices of 
hominy feed. The average price of $75.15 reached in August of that 
year was the highest of the entire period of seven and a half years 
covered by the table. In the next two months there was a decline 
of $25.65 per ton, or more than 34 per cent. The price advanced 
again at the close of 1919 and in the early months of 1920, reaching 
an average of $70 in May, 1920. 

While the prices in the first half of 1920 did not reach the high 

fioint of August, 1919, the level for this period was even higher than 
or the year 1919 as a whole. 

Section 7. Prices of reground oat hulls. 

The following table gives simple monthly average prices of reground 
oat hulls for the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive, as 
computed from weekly quotations (mean of low and high) published 
in the Boston Chamber of Commerce Weekly Market Report: 

Table 23. — Average prices per ton oj reground oat hulh,^ Boston market, by months, 
January, 191J, lo June, 1920, inclusive. 





I9i:i 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 




S14.80 
15.25 
15.38 
16.00 
16.13 
16.75 
15.30 
17.00 
18.00 
16.65 
16.69 
17.60 


$17.69 
16.13 
16.63 
16.40 
16.00 
16.00 
15.80 
15.88 
16.50 
16.60 
15.13 
15.65 


J17. 75 
20.00 
19.00 
IS. 13 
20.75 
21.40 
22. S8 
21.50 
19.00 
IS. 3S 
19.13 
20.45 


$20.00 
20.13 
20.00 
20.00 
19.60 
18.25 
17. 63 
17.80 
18.50 
20.25 
21.80 
2.3.50 


$23.90 
25.75 
29.00 
32.75 
34.20 
28.63 
2.'). no 
27.70 
23. 75 
26.20 
24.63 
2S. 38 


$30.60 
28.00 
33.33 
31.50 
23.80 
19.88 
21.80 
21.75 
22. 75 
20.00 
25.63 
25.75 


$27.30 
28.19 
28.75 
32.20 
37.63 
35.38 
29.60 
33.25 
31.75 
29.20 
2.8. .W 
30.70 


$34.25 




36.25 




37.80 




42.00 


Miy 


52.13 




54.80 






























Year 


16.30 


16.19 


20.11 


19.79 


27.49 


25.90 


31.04 


"42.87 







1 Probably oat feed. 



' Average January-June. 



"» A special rpgiilation of the Food Administration (issned July 50, 1918, amended Nov. 1, 1918, and 
repealed Dec. 17, 191s) provided that licensed corn millers should not sell hominy feed produced as a 
by-product of the manufacture of edible corn at a price per pound in excess of the purchase price per 
pound of the grain from which it was manufactured. (U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations III-B 
5, 6, and 5, 6 b.) 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



119 



The table shows few marked fluctuations in prices from 1913 to 
1916, inclusive, but rapid changes and wide ranges in the averages 
from 1917 to 1919. The yearly averages during the fu-st four 
years ranged from $16.30 to $20.11 per ton. There were times in 
the period from the beginning of 1913 to the middle of 1916 when 
the price was almost stationary for several months together. A 
steady advance began in July, 1916, and culminated in May, 1917, 
the price almost doubling in these few months. A pronounced 
break followed in June and July. Prices were high m the first 
four months of 191S, generally above $30, but in June the average 
had fallen below $20.^"' There was another period of continuous 
advance from November, 1918, to May, 1919, inclusive, the increase 
being $12, or nearly 50 per cent. 

Perhaps the most striking feature of the table is the very rapid 
and continuous advance from November, 1919, to June, 1920, the 
price increasing in this period by $26.30, or 92 per cent. The average 
of $54.80 for June, 1920, was the maximum for the entire period of 
seven and a half years, and 270 per cent above the minimum of 
$14.80 for January, 1913. 

Section 8. Prices of rice bran and rice polish. 

Monthly average prices of rice bran and rice polish for the period 
January, 1913, to April, 1920, are given in Appendix Table 4. The 
figures in this table are weighted averages of all wholesale spot and 

Erompt transactions, f. o. b. mills, computed from records furnished 
y five concerns, three at Houston, Tex., and two at New Orleans, 
one of the latter being the largest rice-milling concern in the United 
States. Sales of the rice by-products are ordinarily very light in 
May, June, and July, and for the earlier years some prices on con- 
tract sales were used in connection with spot and prompt prices in 
order to make the table complete for these periods of infrequent 
sales. The following statement, summarized from Appendix Table 
4, gives the average yearly prices of rice bran and rice polish with 
the margins between them: 





1913 


19U 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 




J21. 77 
16.21 


»24.16 
15. 30 


»24.44 
14.80 


$26.27 
17.17 


{40.25 
31.67 


$56.41 
36.30 














5.56 


8.86 


9.64 


9.10 


8.58 


20.05 









There were marked difi'erences in the relation between the prices 
of these two feeds in difl'erent years. In 1913 the average price of 
rice polish was only about $5.50 above that of rice bran, while in 
1918 and 1919 the difference was more than $20. 

It will be noted that there was a continuous advance in the yearly 
average price of rice polish from 1913 to 1919, but that rice bran 
declined in price in 1914 and 1915. The advance of $37.73 in the 
price of rice polish between 1913 and 1919 amounted to 173 per cent, 
while rice bran increased from 1915 to 1919 by $24.01 or 162 per cent. 

sib A special regulation of the Food Adinini.stration (issued July 20, 191s, and repealed Dec. 17, 1918) 
provided that hcenseees should not sell oat feed produced as a by-product of the manufacture of oat products 
at a price per pound in excess of the purchase price per pound of the grain from which it was manufac- 
tured. (U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations IU-B-5, (Rule 5). 



120 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

There was a marked increase in prices both of rice bran and rice 
polish in the latter part of 1916 and tiio early months of 1917. (Ap- 

f)endix Table 4.) The price of rice bran increased continuously 
rom July, 1916, to April, 1917, and after a decline in May, went 
still higher in June, tne increase from July, 1916, to June, 1917, 
being 180 per cent. From August, 1916, to June, 1917, the price 
of rice polish advanced 119 per cent, though the increase was not 
unbroken. Prices of both feeds remained nearly stationary during 
the fall of 1917, but advanced considerably in December and stood 
at a high level during the first half of 1918. 

• Under a uniform agreement with the United States Food Adminis- 
tration, all rice millers agreed to sell rice polish at not to exceed $50 
per ton, and rice bran at not to exceed $36 per ton, packed in custo- 
mary manner, car lots, f. o. b. mills. ^^ 

In the summer and early fall of 1919 prices were very high for 
both rice bran and polish, the maximum prices for the entire period 
covered by the tables being reached in August, 1919, with an average 
price of $43.97 for rice bran and $68.59 for rice polish. These prices 
showed an advance over the lowest prices of the series of 230 per 
cent for rice bran and 280 per cent for rice polish.''^ 

Section 9. Prices of starch and glucose by-products. 

It has been pointed out above (Chap. Ill, sec. 3) that in the manu- 
facture of commercial starch and glucose, important by-products are 
produced which are valuable protein feeds. Corn gluten feed is the 
most important of these by-products by reason of the quantity 

Eroduced, though it is considerably lower in protein content and 
rings a lower price than corn gluten meal. Corn oil meal or corn 
f;erm meal, while lower in protein than corn gluten feed, is high in 
at content. It is a valuable feed but in quantity produced is 
relatively unimportant as compared with corn gluten feed. 

Prices of corn gluten feed. — The following table gives the 
monthly average prices of corn gluten feed and corn oil meal in 
bulk, f. o. b. Chicago, as furnished by an important producer. The 
figirres are true averages derived by dividing the total proceeds from 
the sales of the given feed in each month by the tonnage sold, and 
presumably represent the actual market 'more closely than simple 
averages of prices for selected dates. '^ 

" U. S. F. A. Special Regulations XXV-C, 1, 2, 3, (o), note. (Sept. 26, 1918.) 

M Minimum prices, rice bran S13.33 (November, 1915); rice polish, $18 (July, 1913). 

** The Commission secured statistics of prices of corn gluten feed from foiu" of the leading producers, 
including the Corn Products Refining Co. In the statement which follows these companies are designated, 
respectively, by the letters A, B, C,and D. The prices in all cases are on bulk shipments f. o. b. Chicago, 
it being the custom of the trade to make Chicago the basing poiut in all price quotations on com gluten 
feed. 

Asstated in a later chapter (Chap. VII, sec. 7) it is commonly admitted in the trade that other manufac- 
turers of corn gluten feed generally follow the prices of the leatling producer. The fact that the list prices 
of the four companies from which price statistics were secured haveditfered veryiittleovera long period 
of years is brought out bv the following comparisons. Company A not onlv furnished a record of its true 
average prices, but also gave its price list showing quoted prices from January IS, 1913, to June 22. 1920, 
inclusixe. 

Company B furnished a table of monthly average prices wliich it describes as "average prices without 
reference to the amountsold. averaged on the number of different prices made during the month." The 
company asserts that its sales are fairly uniform and that the averages furnished would differ little fi-om 
true averages. 

Companies C and D furnished records ottheir prices on the 1st. luth, and 20th oJeach month, the record 
for company C i)eginning with January, 1913, and that for company D with January, 1916. 

From the price list furnished by company A average prices were computed on 1 "he same basis as com- 
pany B's averages,!. e.,a simple average "of the several prices in force each month. A comparison of 
these monthly averages for the two companies shows very close correspondence, the figures being exactly 
the same for 43 of the 90 months covered. The ma-ximum diHerence for any month was $2, and only '6 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



121 



Table 24. — Average prices per ton oj earn gluten feed and com oil meal, in bulk, Chicago 
basis, by months,' January, 1913, to May, 1920, inclusive.' 



CORN GLUTEN FEED. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1910 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 




S20.8S 
21.53 
19.63 
18.40 
18.42 
19.07 
19.49 
20. M 
22.95 
23.30 
23.51 
22.95 


$23.50 
24.82 
24.66 
23.20 
22.48 
22.64 
22.69 
23.51 
23.16 
22.48 
23.66 
23.33 


$24.16 
24.96 
22.52 
21.10 
21.56 
21.65 
22.31 
21.89 
22.42 
20.98 
21.15 
21.16 


$22.24 
23.72 
23. .54 
22.99 
19.72 
20.73 
21.19 
21.75 
23.12 
24.97 
27.55 
31.81 


$.32.73 
33.10 
32.55 
35.20 
37.97 
37.17 
37.67 
37.86 
43.87 
43.74 
45. .32 
45.08 


$48.25 
49.13 
49.97 
48.08 
46.84 
35. 16 
40.13 
42.22 
45. 79 
46.90 
46.59 
47.43 


■$48.15 
49.47 
47.11 
48.66 
51.79 
.53. 27 
55.66 
01.15 
63. 48 
58.75 
60.33 
59.28 


$63.76 




64.82 








65. 57 


May 


66.75 






Julv 




























Year 


20.96 


23.38 


22.08 


23.51 


38.06 


45.44 


55.21 









CORN OIL MEAL. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 




124.55 
24.63 
23.16 
19.38 
20.18 
19.96 
19.48 
21. .=^3 
23.18 
23.85 
23.10 
23.26 


$22.79 
22.19 
22.22 
21.72 
21.93 
22.02 
23.61 
23.44 
22.60 
22.57 
21.97 
21.65 


$23.15 
23.97 
22.59 
21.70 
22.13 
23.47 
22.33 
23.26 
23. .52 
22.39 
21.73 
23.76 


$23.36 
24.06 
22.85 
20.85 
20.64 
20.67 
21.22 
22.27 
25. 82 
27.03 
26.30 
27.03 


$33.58 
33.68 
34.30 
36.64 
36.17 
43.69 
42.55 
49.24 
50.37 
60.12 
48.00 
49.69 


.$52.90 
53.57 
55.42 
58.20 
57.38 
41.08 
44.f.5 
44.82 
48.87 
52.75 
.50. 22 
47.42 


$51.64 
49.93 
39.37 
48.96 
53.47 
56.26 
59.37 
67.48 
70.28 
55.17 
.59. 90 
03.75 


S66.40 








61.07 


April 


64.06 


May 


68.99 






July 






























22.16 


22.38 


22.8.5 


23.50 


41. 70 


50.66 


56.93 









' True averages. See p. 120. 
' Average January-May. 

There were no great fluctuations in prices of corn gluten feed dur- 
ing the first thi-ee and a half years covered by the table. The price 
level was somewhat higher in 1914 than in 1913 or 1915. Prices 
advanced very greatly from May, 1916, to March, 1918, from an av- 
erage of $19.72 in the earlier month to $49.97 in the later, an increase 
of more than 150 per cent. From this high point the price dropped 
to an average of $35.16 in June, 1918, a decline of nearly 30 per cent. 
Another period of advancing prices ensued, and continued with little 
interruption until an average price of $63.48 was reached in Sep- 
tember, 1919. After a slight decline in the last quarter of that year, a 
period of very high prices followed in the early part of 1920. The 
average price of $60.75 for May, 1920, was the maximum for the 

months showed differences of $1 or more. The maximum diflerence in year averages was 22 cents. This 
comparison indicates that companies A and B have substantially the same quoted prices. 

The list prices of company A may be compared with the prices "furnished by company C for the 1st, 10th, 
and 20th of each montli for the period January 20, 1913, to June 20, 1920. The figures for these two com- 
panies mav also be compared with the prices of company D for the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month, for the 
period January 10, 1916, to May 20, 1920, inclusive. 

The total number of days {1st, 10th, and 20th of the month) for which the prices of companies A and C 
may be compared is 268. 'The prices of the two companies agree exactly for 240 of these days, or in practi- 
cally 90 per cent of the cases. In 7 of the 28 cases in which the prices of the two companies differed, the 
difference was only 25 cents per ton, and in only 9 cases was there a difference of $2 or more per ton. The 
figtires for company D may be compared with those of companies A and C for a total of 158 days. On all 
but 13 ofthese days the figures for company D agree with those otoneorboth of the other two "companies. 
In 131 cases, or more than 80 percent of the total of 1,58, the prices of the three companies were identical. 

This comparison indicates substantial agreement in the prices of companies A, C, and D, and a similar 
agreement between the figures of companies A and B has already been shown. 



122 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

entire table, marking an increase of more than 260 per cent over the 
minimum price of $18.40 for April, 1913. The very high prices in 
the first half of 1920 were due to a marked scarcity of corn gluten 
feed accompanied by a brisk demand. This scarcity was attrmuted 
by the market press chiefly to car shortage, which made it difficult 
for manufacturers to secure a sufficient supply of corn. According 
to press reports the principal producer of this feed was forced to sus- 
pend grinding at some of its plants and to curtail production at 
others on account of the shortage of cars and corn.'^ The heavy 
demand for corn gluten feed at that time was attributed in part to 
purchases by those who had formerly used distillery and brewery 
grains.'" 

Prices of corn oil meal. — The general level of prices of corn oil 
meal, as shown in year averages, did not vary greatly from that of 
corn gluten feed for the earlier years covered in Table 24, though 
there were considerable differences in the prices of the two feeds m 
particular months. It will be noted also that the price of corn oil 
meal was sometimes higher and at other times lower than that of 
corn gluten feed. In 1917 and 1918 the price of corn oil meal was 
almost continuously considerably higher than that of com gluten 
feed. The differences ran as high as $10 or more in three months 
and the differences in the year averages were $.3.64 for 1917 and $5.22 
for 1918. The average difference for the year 1919 was much smaller, 
but there were some wide variations between the averages for some 
months, the price of corn gluten feed being occasionally higher than 
that of oil meal. The average price of the two feeds was practically 
the same for the first five months of 1920 as a whole. 

The price of corn oil meal, like that of corn gluten feed, was fairly 
constant up to the middle of 1916; then an advance began, which 
continued with slight interruptions mitil a maximum price of $58.20 
was reached in April, 1918. This was an increase of more than 180 
per cent over the price of May, 1916. Prices fluctuated considerably 
during the remainer of 1918 and in 1919. The highest price of the 
entire period of seven and a half years was reached in September, 
1919, wnen the average was $70.28. The prices of the first five months 
of 1920 were also very high. 

Section 10. Prices of cottonseed by-products. 

Prices of cottonseed meal. — The bulk of the cottonseed meal 
used for feeding purposes is sold under brand names with the mini- 
mum protein content guaranteed. 

The prices of cottonseed cake and meal prior to 1917 were dom- 
inated by the export market, but since that year have been controlled 
almost entirely by domestic conditions. 

Prices of cottonseed meal were obtained from two of the largest 
jobbers, covering the period January, 1913, to March, 1920, inclu- 
sive. Prior to July, 1916, the standard brands contained a minimum 
of 41 per cent protein. About that time meal containing a minimum 
of 36 per cent protein became the standard." The figures secured 
for January, 1913, to June, 1916, inclusive, therefore, were for brands 

>!■ Feedingstiifls, JIarch, 1920, p. 49. 

« Western lirain Journal, Feb. 26, 1920, p. 47. 

" See Chap. Ill, sec. 5, for e.\plaDation of cause of this reduction in guaranteed protein content. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



123 



with a guaranteed minimum protein content of 41 per cent, and 
those for July, 1916, to March, 1920, inclusive, for brands carrying 
a guaranty of 36 per cent protein.^' Prices shown in the following 
taole are averages of jobbers' selling prices for car-lot transactions 
for the 1st, 10th, and 20th, of each month, and are mostly for prompt 
sales f. o. b. the oil mills. In some months prices on a few contract 
sales for shipment within 60 or 90 days were used in computing the 
averages. The averages are weighted by tonnage sold on the days 
for which prices were secured. 

Table 25. — Jobbers' average selling prices per ton of cottonseed meal, /. o. b. mills, by 
months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. 

[41 per cent protein January, 1913, to June, 1916, inclusive; 36 per cent protein July, 1916, to June, 1920.1 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


191S 


1919 


1920 




$25.77 
24.67 
23.95 
24.29 
25.86 
26.14 
25.19 
25.49 
27.46 
26.55 
24.86 
26.36 


J26.81 
26.65 
25.98 
26.75 
27.75 
27.41 
26.36 
25.63 
24.17 
24.11 
23.47 
23.68 


$23.97 
24.52 
25.29 
28.02 
25.21 
24.33 
24.92 
25.59 
26.63 
25.89 
27.75 
27.57 


$28.49 
.30. 12 
29.58 
2.S. 41 
29.24 

1 28. 95 
25.94 
26.70 
27.88 
32.34 
33.04 
33.27 


$35.20 
34.62 
34.10 
36.02 
37.39 
37.77 
42.57 
4.3.57 
42.95 
44.21 
45. 78 
46.00 


$46.44 
46.55 
45.95 
46.92 
47.12 
48.09 
49.23 
48.90 
53.00 
53. 74 
54.51 
55.90 


$56.17 
56.08 
56.44 
57.04 
57.24 
56.79 
61.49 
65.96 
64.76 
66.36 
66.86 
66.15 


$09. 14 




71.71 


March 


09.37 


April ... 


"64.81 


Mav 


" 65. 13 




• 63. 63 


July 




























Year' 


25.63 


24.98 


25.40 


30.73 


40.41 


50.71 


61.32 


* 67. 30 







> Sales of 41'per cent protein meal continued for several months — average prices July to December. 1916, 
were as follows: July, $2S. 61; August, $30.38; September, $29.34; October, $32.78; November, $37.02, 
December, $iS.69. 

* Simple averages of weekly prices of 36 per cent protein meal on the Memphis market, as published In 
the Weekly Market Reporter of the Department of Agriculture. 

' Weighted averages, 1913-1919. Simple average for first half of 1920. 

* Average January-June. 

Prices of cottonseed meal did not fluctuate very widely from Jan- 
uary, 1913, to the middle of 1916, the extreme range in monthly 
average prices of 41 per cent protein meal during this period being 
from ,i;23.47 to $30.12. The price of 36 per cent protein meal ad- 
vanced rapidly, with occasional slight declines, from July, 1916, to 
September, 1918. The increase in this period was more than 100 

fter cent, or from about $26 to $54 per ton. In a single year, 
rom August, 191G, to July, 1917, the increase was nearly 60 per cent. 
A presidential proclamation of October 8, 1917, required that 
cottonseed crushers and importers and distributors of cottonseed 
products should be licensed.^'*'' By special regulation issued November 
1, 1917, the Food Administration provided that crushers should not 
sell the products of cotton seed at more than a reasonable advance 
over the average cost of the seed from which the products were man- 
ufactured.^*" A special rej'ulation issued August 1, 1918, provided 
that licensed dealers should not sell cottonseed cake and meal or 
cottonseed hulls at more than a reasonable advance over actual cost 
of the particular commodity sold, without regard to the market or 

■8 The figures from the sources mentioned were supplemented in Table 25 for the months of April, May, 
and June, 1920, by averages of weekly quotations on 36 per cent protein meal on the Memphis market, as 
pubhshed in the Weekly Market Reporter of the Department of Agriculture. 

bSa*' Rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of food 
commodities for domestic trade by persons subject to license," pp. 4-0. 

3ei> U. S. F. A. Special Regulations IX-B-8, 9 (Rule 8). 



124 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

replacement value at the time of sale. This regulation also specified 
the maximum jobbers' and wholesalers' margins on resales of these 
commodities which would be considered reasonable.'" 

On September 26, 1918, the Food Administration arranged for a 
price of $53 per ton for 36 per cent protein cottonseed meal and 
screened cracked cake, in any quantity, in sacks, f. o. b. point of 
manufacture (except for Oklahoma, Texas, and California). This 
arrangement was carried out under the stabilization program of the 
Food Administration, based on the price of cotton seed at the average 
agreed upon by the producers and the Food Administration.'"" 
Tliis regulation remained in effect until May 31, 1919. The average 
prices shown in Table 2.5 for this period range from $53.74 for 
October, 1918, to $57.24 for May, 1919. 

Prices in the latter half of 1919 were higher than in the first half, 
though they were nearly stationary during the last three months — 
between $66 and $67. The ma.ximum monthly average shown in 
the table, viz, $71.71 for February, 1920, was three times the mini- 
mum price of $23.47 for November, 1914. 

Prices op cottonseed hulls. — Appendix Table 5 gives monthly 
average prices of merchantable cottonseed hulls from February, 1913, 
to April, 1920, inclusive. These averages were computed from low 
and high quotations on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, and 25th of 
each month, as shown by the records of the Memphis Merchants' 
Exchange. 

The table shows wide fluctuations in prices in some of the years — 
e. g., the range of monthly averages for the year 1915 was from ,'54.25 
to $11.92, the minimum being in September and the maximum in 
December; in 1919 the range was from $5.96 (July) to $11.50 
(January). 

The yearly averages increased from $6.70 per ton in 1914 to $20.29 
in 1918, but the average for 1919 was only $8.01, or less than the 
average for the year 1913. One of the most striking features of the 
table IS the very low level of pi-ices from March to December, 1919, 
inclusive. This is in marked contrast with the figures in the other 
price tables. 

The Food Administration (Sept. 26, 1918) arranged for a price of 
$20 per ton for cottonseed hulls, bulk or loose, f. o. b. cars at point of 
manufacture. This arrangement was made under the stabilization 
program above mentioned. Although this arrangement was in effect 
until May 31, 1919, the figures in the table show that during most of 
the period the prices were very much below tlie permitted maximum. 

Section 11. Prices of linseed meal. 

Wholesale prices of linseed meal containing a minimum guaranty 
of 32 to 34 per cent protein and 5 to 6 per cent fat f. o. b. oil mills 
Minneapolis, Minn., were secured for the period January, 1913, to 
June, 1920, inclusive. Prices shown in the table below are weighted 
averages of all sales on the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each month for one 
concern for the years 1913 to 1917, and for four concerns from 1918 
to June, 1920. 

» U. S. F. A. Special Regulations X.XV-D-1, 2, 3 (Rule 1 and note). 
"•• U.S.F.A. Special Regulations XXV-D-1, 2, 3, note. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



125 



Table 26. 



-Average prices per ton oj linseed-oil meal, /. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, 
January, 1913, to Ju7te, 1920, inclusive. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 


$27.30 
26.72 
24.92 
23.8.S 
23.22 
23.50 
24.82 
27.72 
31.03 
28.22 
27.10 
27.27 


$28.00 
28.42 
27.08 
27.32 
26.83 
29.46 
29.17 
29.38 
29.00 
26.75 
29.83 
31.65 


$35.09 
36.25 
32.65 
30.75 
29.00 
29.82 
32.36 
34.29 
35.17 
35.17 
34.55 
34.40 


$35.00 
34.80 
30.91 
28.29 
26.91 
27.61 
31.45 
33.67 
35.27 
36.71 
42.42 
43. S3 


$43.39 
42.67 
42.25 
42.45 
45.29 
43.90 
46.50 
53.48 
51.00 
54.50 
53.15 
56.93 


.$55.85 
55.52 
56.01 
56.03 
65.46 
53.32 
53.23 
55.85 
56.00 
55.34 
53.96 
54.44 


$59.72 
59.27 
61.28 
62.53 
63.61 
64.97 
73.56 
86.61 
79.95 
68. 62 
72.49 
75.50 


$79. 41 
78.98 
75.21 
68.08 
64.35 
63.12 
























Year 


25.87 


28.73 


33.11 


34.22 


48.02 


54.73 


67.22 


172.70 



' Average January-June. 

The table shows only a slight range in the monthly averages in 1914 
($4.90) and 1918 (only $2.80), and a moderate range (between $7 and 
$8) in 1913 and 1915. On the other hand, the range was wide in 1916, 

1917, 1919, and the first half of 1920, particularly in 1919, when the 
difference between the lowest and highest monthly averages was 
$27.34. 

The movement of prices as shown in the yearly averages was steadily 
upward during the entire period covered by the table. The absolute 
increases were greatest from 1916 to 1917 and from 1918 to 1919, 
amounting to $13.80 and $12.49, respectively. Much the greatest 
relative increase in any year was from 1916 to 1917, viz, nearly 40 
per cent. The yearly average for 1919 was $67.22 per ton as com- 
pared Tvath $25.87 for 1913, an increase of almost 160 per cent. 
Prices more than doubled in the period from May, 1916, to April, 

1918, advancing from about $27 per ton to about $56. There was 
an almost uninterrupted increase in prices from November, 1918, to 
August, 1919, from an average of $53.96 to $86.61, or 60 per cent. 
This was followed by a sharp decline to $68.62 in October, 1919. 
Another advance brought the average price to $79.41 in January, 
1920, from which point it fell steadily to $63.12 in June, 1920. 

The estimated yearly production of linseed cake and meal in the 
years 1913-14 to 1916-17, inclusive, as shown in Table 10, p. 54, 
was from 405,000 tons to 484,000 tons. In 1917-18 and 1918-19 
the production declined to a yearly average of about 365,000 tons, 
while in the year 1919-20 the output increased to 525,000 tons. 
Dm-ing the four years ending with 1916-17 from 60 to more than 75 
per cent of the total production was exported each year, but in the 
three succeeding years exports ranged from only 21 per cent to 32 
per cent. 

The slight range in prices in 1918 was doubtless due in large 
measure to the regulations of the Food Administration." The 
removal of these regulations in January, 1919, at a time when there 
was a shortage in the production of linseed cake and meal, was fol- 

<" .\ Presidential proclamation of *in. Ill, 1918, required persons importinK, manufacturing, storiiic, or 
distributing various feeds, including linseed oil caljo and meal, to be licensed, and the Food Adnuiiis- 
tration, by regulations of Jan. 28, 1918, repealed Jan. 10, 1919, provided that such licensees should not 
takemore than a rea.sonable profit over average cost on the sale of such feeds. (V. S. F. A. Special 
Regulations XXV-A-I and B, 5, 6, 7, Rule 7.) 



126 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



lowed by high prices in the year 1919. E.xports were light at this 
time, but domestic demand was heavy. The use of linseed meal by 
feeders in this country had been developed by the relative scarcity 
of feeds during the war period. The decline in prices from January 
to June, 1920, maybe accounted for in part by tne greatly increased 
production. It will be noted that this marked decline in prices from 
January to June, 1920, shows a much different movement than ap- 
pears in the price statistics of most of the other feeds. 

Section 12. Prices of dried-beet pulp. 

Average prices of dried-beet pulp on the Syracuse freight-rate 
basis are shown in the following table for the years 1913 to 1919. 
These average prices were furnished by the Larrowe Milling Co., of 
Detroit, which handles the greater part of this product. (Chap. VII, 
sec. 7.) The bulk of the product is handled under contract and the 
price remains at the same figure for several months at a time, gener- 
ally for the crop year. 

Table 27. — Average prices oj dried-beet pulp per ton, Syracuse Jreight-rate basis, by 
months, 1913-1919, inclusive. 



January... 
February. . 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 
October. .. 
November. 
December. 



$23.60 
23.80 
23.90 
23.90 
23.90 
23.90 
(') 
(■) 
(') 

25.40 
25.40 
25.40 



$25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
25.40 
23.90 
23.90 
23.90 
24.40 



$24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 



$24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 
24.40 



24.90 
24.90 
24.90 



$24.90 
24.90 
24.90 
24.90 
24.90 



$40.00 
40.00 
49.00 
49.00 



45.53 
45.53 
45.53 



$45.53 
45.53 
45.53 

45.53 
45.53 



54.60 
54.60 
54.60 



^ Supply exhausted. 

The price during the first six months of 1913 was slightly under 
$24 per ton. For the crop year 1913-14 it was advanced to $25.40. 
During September, October, and November, 1914, the price was 
reduced to $23.90, while from December of that year to July, 1916, 
it was uniformly $24.40. An advance of 50 cents per ton in October, 

1916, held until May of the following year. 

The supply was exhau.sted from June to September, inclusive, 

1917, consequently no prices are available. In October the price 
advanced to $39, in December to $40 and in March, 1918 to $49. 
The supply was again exhausted from May to September, 1918, 
inclusive. 

The Food Administration by regulation issued June 15, 1918, and 
repealed January 26, 1919, provided tiiat manufacturers should not 
sell dried-beet pulp at more than a fair and reasonable advance over 
cost, and on September 27, 1918, declared that sales at a price above 
$40 per ton, sacked, f. o. b. factory, would be regarded as a violation 
of this regulation.*' 

Under this regulation the price of $45.53, Syracuse freight-rate 
basis, was in effect from October, 1918, to May, 1919, inclusive. 



" U. S. F. A. Special Regulations VI-C-1, 2(a) rule 2, note. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



127 



when the supply was again exhausted. During the last three months 
of 1919 the price was $54.60. This price marked an advance over 
the low price of January, 1913, amounting to $31, or 130 per cent. 

Section 13. Prices of cane blackstrap molasses. 

The average contract prices, per gallon, of cane blackstrap molasses, 
f. o. b. storage plants at New York City, by months, January, 1914, 
to Jime, 1920, inclusive, are shown in the following table. The 

E rices are the monthly average net receipts in cents per gallon for 
lackstrap in bulk, and were furnished by an important company 
handling this product. It is understood that feed manufacturers 
generally secure the bulk of their cane blackstrap molasses under 
contracts covering their requirements for several months, or even 
for a year, in advance. It should be pointed out that these figures 
are the contract prices of one concern only, and that contract prices 
for other companies would presumably show some differences. 

It should also be noted that prices of "free" molasses (i. e., molasses 
not sold under contract) at times greatly exceeded those of contract 
molasses, e. g., in the early months of 1920, when there was an acute 
shortage of this product. (See Chap. VII, sec. 7.) 

Table 28. — Average net prices per gallon Jot contract cane blackstrap molasses, in bulk, 
f. o. b. storage plants. New York, by months, January, 1914, to June, 1920, inclusive. 

[Cents per gallon.] 





1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


191S 


1919 


1920 




8.04 
8.03 
7.85 
7.37 
7. SO 
7.69 
7.82 
7.80 
7.40 
7.62 
7.54 
7.48 


7.13 
7.18 
7.10 
6.80 
7.28 
6.75 
6.93 
7.13 
6.64 
7.74 
7.00 
7.89 


10.91 
9.82 
13.34 
13.48 
11.09 
13.02 
12.30 
14.34 
13.08 
12.20 
16.10 
16.74 


16.80 
16.95 
16.88 
18.27 
17.31 
17.71 
17.57 
17.94 
19.64 
18.21 
18.54 
16.37 


23.75 
25.29 
22.13 
20.56 
20.47 
20.55 
19.97 
19.53 
18.11 
18.02 
18.09 
16.87 


15.37 
17.72 
17.32 
16.43 

7.47 
7.29 
7.78 
7.84 
7.82 
8.25 
9.00 
8.78 












AprU.. .. 




^^av 








July 




























Year' 


7.70 


7.13 


13.03 


17.68 


20.28 


10.92 









1 .simple averages of monthly averages. 2 Average, .lannarj'-June. 

During 1914 and 1915 the contract prices of blackstrap molasses 
ranged from G.64 cents per gallon to 8.04 cents. The prices in 1916 
were much higher in every month, with an average for the year of 
more than 13 cents per gallon. Still further advances brought the 
year average to 17.68 cents in 1917 and to 20.28 cents in 1918. 

The United States Food Administration (Mar. 16, 1918) after an 
investigation of the cost of manufacturing blackstrap molasses, 
determined that any sale of imported blackstrap molasses or black- 
strap molasses manufactured in the United States from imported 
cane sugar at a price of more than 18 cents per gallon, in tank cars, 
f. o. b. seaboard points, would return the owner an unjust and un- 
reasonable profit.*^ By regulation (issued June 15, 1918, and repealed 
Jan. 26, 1919) it was provided that a licensee should not sell olack- 
strap molasses when manufactured from imported raw cane sugar 

« U. S. F. A. Press Release No. 763. Mar. 16, 1918. 



128 COMMERCIiU. FEEDS. 

for more than 18 cents per gallon in bulk and 23 cents per gallon in 
barrels, f. o. b. cars, at primary markets or port of entry, or point of 
production if carrying the same freight rate as from primary 
markets.'" 

The maximum monthly average for the whole period covered by 
the table was 25.29 cents for February, 1918, from which point the 
price declined to 1.5.37 cents in January, 1919. 

The most striking feature of the table is the break in prices from 
an a\ferage of 16.43 cents to 7.47 cents per gallon from April to May, 
1919. A break of 6 cents per gallon in the spot price of bulk black- 
strap occurred about March 1, 1919, and was attributed to accumu- 
lation of heavy stocks. ^^ This break is not reflected in the contract 
prices shown in Table 28 until May. 

Relatively low prices continued through the remainder of the year, 
and the average for the year (10.92 cents per gallon) was only slightly 
above half the average price for 1918. During the greater part of 
the fu-st half of 1920 prices were considerably higher than at the end 
of 1919, and prices of free molasses were in many cases much higher 
than those shown in the table. 

Section 14. Prices of digester tankage. 

Prices for digester tankage were obtained from one of the large 
Tenderers in Chicago for the period January, 1917, to May, 1920, 
and also from a large packer in Indianapolis for the period June, 
1917, to June, 1920. There was a similar movement in the prices 
of the two concerns. The simple average price, f. o. b. Chicago, for 
January, 1917, was $55.67 per ton, from which figure it rose steadily 
to $100 per ton in October, November, and December, 1918. During 
the year 1919 the price fluctuated around $100 per ton, the lowest 
price being $96.21 in June and the highest $102.50 in September. 
The price in January, 1920, was $101 .25, February $106.25, and March, 
April, and May $110 per ton. 

Section 15. Prices of alfalfa meal. 

Alfalfa meal is graded under the rules of the American Feed 
Manufacturers' Association as Choice, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. The 
greater part of the output is of the No. 1 grade." 

Colorado is the leading State in the production of alfalfa meal, but 
there are mills in some of the other States of the West and South- 
west. The principal markets in which mills make oflferings are 
Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago. 

Appendix Table 6 gives monthly average prices of No. 1 alfalfa 
meal in carload lots, f. o. b. Colorado and Kansas mills, and the 
average of quoted prices for Kansas City rate points, for the period 
January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive." 

The Colorado prices are weighted averages of several transactions 
per month furnished by one of the largest millers in the country. 

" U. S. F. A. Special Regulation VI, B, rule 3. 

" Journal of Commprce, Feb. 28, 1019, p. H. 

*■' The No. 1 grade is describe*! as follows in the olTicial definitions of the Americim Feed Manufacturers' 
Association: 

•No, I alfalfa meal shall lie milled from whole alfalfa hay of fair green color, .sound and sweet, with pro- 
nounced alfalfa fragrance and be free from foreign grasses, and shall contain not less than 12 per cent 
protein and 1 per cent of fat, and shall not contain to exceed U per cent of moisttire; and be packed in 
100-pound, net weight sacks." 

*" The Colorado mill figures do not cover the first si.x months of 1913, 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 129 

For a few of the months in which prices were missing figures were 
supplied from the records of other millers. In thi'ee instances prices 
were interpolated. The Kansas mill prices are simple averages of 
the weekly prices as furnished by one of the largest millers in that 
State. The prices for Kansas City rate points are averages of the 
low and high cjuotations on or about the 1st, 10th, and 20th of each 
month as recorded in the Kansas City Daily Drovers Telegram. 

The Colorado mill prices during the period of three and a half 
years from July, 1913, to December, 1916, ranged from a low of 
$12.90 (February, 1915) to a high of .$20.58 (December, 1916). The 
price level was higher in the last half of 1913 than from 1914 to 
1916, inclusive, the averages for these periods being, respectively, 
$16.05, $14..34, .114.18, and $15.04. The average price for 1917 was 
$25.87, or $10 higher than the average for 1916. There was a wide 
fluctuation in prices in 1917, the range being nearly $15 from the low 
price of $20 to the high price of $34.72. The"l918 average was 
about $4.50 above that of 1917 and the average price for the year 
1919 was nearly identical with that of the preceding year. In the 
first half of 1920 there was an increase of about $4 in the price level 
over the 1919 average. The maximum price for the Colorado mills 
for the entire period of seven years was $37.40 for May, 1920, or 
nearly three times as high as the minimum price ($12.90) for Feb- 
ruary, 1915. 

The prices for the Kansas mill were higher than the Colorado mill 
prices in all but a very few months. The differences in the yearly 
averages between the Colorado and Kansas prices ranged from 
about $1 to $2.75, except in 1919, when the difference was over .$4, 
and in the first half of 1920, when it was less than $1. 

The range in the monthly averages for the Kansas mill during the 
years 1913 to 1916 was $9.25, or from $14.25 to $23.50, both the 
low and high prices occurring in the year 1916. The general level of 
prices as shown in the yearly averages did not change greatly during 
this period, though the average was somewhat lower in 1915 than in 
the other years. The ma.ximum monthly average for the Kansas 
mill was reached in April, 1919, instead of May, 1920, as was the case 
with the Colorado prices. The highest monthly average for the 
Kansas mill was $40, which was about two and tlxree-quarters times 
the minimum ($14.25) of July, 1916. 

The published cjuotations for Kansas City rate points differ con- 
siderably in some months from the Kansas mill figures, the former 
generally being higher. The difference in yearly averages for the two 
price records, however, is not marked except for the year 1918, 
namely, $3.64. 

Section 16. Prices of ready-mixed feeds. 

The study of the prices of ready-mixed or proprietary feeds is 
restricted within rather narrow limits. In the fii'st place no two 
manufacturers produce ready-mixed feeds which are exactly alike, 
even when both are catering to the same body of consumers and both 
are makino; feeds to fill the same requirements. The only ready- 
mixed feeds which can possibly be exceptions are the verj^ simple 
mixtures which contain as few as two or three ingredients. Even 

42976°— 21 9 



180 ('OMMEI!CIAL I'lCEDS. 

those arc likely to bo mixed in different proportions and the ingi'odients 
themselves are likely to be of different qualities and eosts. 

When the more complex mixtures are considered, a very great 
diversity is found in the number and proportion of inj^-edicnts. Most 
manufacturers consider the formulas of their feeds as trade secrets, 
and in consequence they endeavor to guard them from detection 
and duplication by other manufacturers. 

Moreover, since many manufacturers frequently change the pro- 
portions of ingi-edients in their feeds, a given brand name docs not 
necessarily represent a mixture of exactly the same composition over 
a long period. (See Chap. IV, sec. 12.) Naturally, also, the quality 
of different supplies of the same ingredient may differ from time to 
time. 

These facts must be borne in mind in comparing the prices of 
different brands of ready-mixed feeds, and it must be realized that 
even in the same group of feeds the prices of two brands can not be 
compared as though they represented exactly the same commodity. 
Even more serious is the limitation arising from the fact that the 
same brand may represent a different commodity at different times, 
though it may be assumed that most manufacturers try to preserve 
a given standard of rjuality in their feeds. They must also have in 
mind constantly the requirements of their guaranty of the chemical 
analysis of their feeds. 

With these limitations in mind a study may be made of the prices 
of some of the leading brands of ready-mixed feeds, but naturally 
the results can not be as satisfactory as when the prioes of commodi- 
ties answering a more definite description or conforming to more 
exact specifications are the subject of study. 

In the following sections the prices of a number of brands of ready- 
mixed feeds are discussed by groups, as follows: Dairy feeds, stock 
feeds, horse and mule feeds, hog feeds, calf meals, and poultry feeds. 
Tables of monthly average prices of a number of brands in each 
group will be found in the appendix. 

The various brands for which price statistics are given are not 
identified by brand name or name of manufacturer. Wliile a number 
of manufacturers were perfectly willing that such identification should 
be made, a considerable number objected to this identification, hold- 
ing that since the composition of difl'erent mixed feeds differs greatly 
and since many manufacturers make frequent changes in their formu- 
las, incorrect deductions would probably be made from price tables 
which revealed the identity of the brands. It was therefore decided 
not to identify any of the brands. In the tables of prices of mixed 
feeds the different brands are designated by numbers and the table 
headings of all the tables but the first " show the state or city in which 
the particular brand is manufactured. 

A Presidential proclamation, dated January 10, 1918, required 
manufacturers of commercial mixed feeds to be licensed.*'" The 
Food Administration, by regulation issued January 28, 1918, apply- 
ing to manufacturers of mixed feeds and others licensed under this 

" The first table (Appendix Table 7) Rivea only prices on tlie Boston freiglit rate basis, and the place 
of manufacture is not indicated. In a few of the other tables also the word " lloston"at the top of the col- 
umn of prices indicates not the place of inanufacturp.tiut that the prices are nn the Boston freight rate basis. 

*'* " Amendments and additions to rules and regulations governing the importation, manufacture, storage 
and distribution of food commodities and feeds for domestic trade by persons subject to license," pp. 25-27. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 131 

proclamation, provided that no more than a reasonable profit should 
be taken in the sale of any f eedingstuffs.^'* 

The Food Administration, by another regulation issued September 
26, 1918, and repealed January 10, 1919, limited the margins of profit 
of manufacturers of mixed feeds, both on individual sales and on 
gross sales.''** This doubtless had the effect of limiting prices of 
mixed feeds during the period the regulation was in force.*" 

Section 17. Prices of dairy feeds. 

There are many widely ailvcrtised dairy feeds on the market. 
The Commission secured price statistics for several of these, including 
both the dry feeds, so called, and the sweet or molasses feeds. The 
feeds for which these prices were obtained cover a wide range in 
cmality as measured by protein content, varying all the way from 
the high-protein mixtures, selling under guaranties ranging from 
24 to 26 per cent protein, down to those for which the guaranteed 
protein content runs as low as 14 to 15 per cent. 

The dry feeds for which prices were secui'ed belong mostly in the 
group which have a guaranteed protein content of 20 per cent or 
more. The molasses feeds for which prices are given vary in pro- 
tein content from 14 per cent to 24 per cent. 

The dry feeds are generally rather similar in the list of ingredients 
used. This, of course, is not equivalent to saying that they are 
similar in composition, for the same ingredients may be used in 
very different proportions in different feeds. The most common 
ingredients in the dry dairy feeds are cottonseed meal, linseed meal, 
corn gluten feed, wheat bran, and brewers' or distillers' dried grains. 
Numerous other ingredients are used, but they are not characteristic 
of the group as a whole. The sweet feeds represented in the price 
tables contain a smaller or larger number of the ingredients named 
above, with the addition of molasses or molasses and alfaKa. Some 
of these feeds also contain one or more of the so-called low-grade 
ingredients, such as clipped oat by-product, oat feed, and screenings. 
Many dairy feeds also contain a small quantity of salt, generally one- 
haff of 1 per cent. 

Two tables of monthly average prices of dairy feeds are given in 
the appendix. Appendix Table 7 gives the prices of tliree brands 
on the Boston freight rate basis for the years 1913 to 1919, with 
figures for two brands for the first six months of 1920. All three of 

<» U. S. F. A. Special License Regulations XXV— B— 5, 6, 7. (Rule 7.) 

«« Margins and profits for mired feed manufacturers.— The United States Food Administration considers 
that in the manufactiu-e and sale of ground or crushed grains or ground hay, and of all commercial mixed 
feeds, the advance on any indiridual sale shotUd not exceed the cost of materials, manufacturing, and 
overhead, plus 12J per cent. The Food Administration will therefore consider unreasonable and as a 
violation of the foregoing rule any sale of such feeds In excess of this advance. 

Furthermore, the Food Administration will consider an annual net earning of more than 6 per cent 
upon the total gross sales of any such feedingstuffs if the dealer's gross sales amount to $100,000 or more 
per annum, to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the rule which prohibits the taking of imreasonable 
profits. 

The maximum margin on uidividual sales is purposely made wide because of the speculative character 
of the products which enter into such manufacture and the rapidly fluctuating prices which may prevail. 
As pointed out, the general average on all sales must not exceed per cent advance over tiie cost of materials, 
manufactiu'c, and overhead, nor does this 6 per cent limitation modify or abrogate the general principle 
contained in the Food Administration regulations that a licensee shall not earn more than a reasonaole 
net profit on his capital invested. The manufactiu'e of mixed feeds is a business which varies in many 
respects according to the type of feed, the expense of manufacture, and the rapidity of tiunover. There 
are therefore some manufacturers to whom a 6 per cent annual net profit may give ah unreasonable return 
on their investment. In such case they are obUged tosellat a lower average "return. (Special Ilegulations 
Applving to Manufacturers of Commercial Mixed Feeds, XXV-0-1, under rule B 7; if. S. Food Admin- 
istration Press Release No. 1373, Jan. 12, 1919.) 

" See also Chap. VI, sec. 3. 



132 



CO M M lORC ' I .\I. I'EKDS. 



the brands are dry feeds. Brands one and two have a very high 
protein content, the jfiiaranty for both feeds beini^; in excess of 24 
per cent. The third brand has a guaranteed minimum protein 
content of 20 per cent. 

The general movement of prices per ton of these three brands 
may be seen in the year averages, which are shown in the following 
statement: 



Brand. 


1913 


1914 


191S 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


19201 


No.l 


J30.43 
30.87 
2 29.36 


J32.67 
32.40 
30.99 


S33.03 
32.24 
31.30 


S34.69 
34.52 
33.20 


t.52.06 
51.94 

'49.74 


$64.26 
62.40 
'59.40 


$72.85 
69.92 
68.98 


$79.42 


No.2 


75.66 


No.3 









1 Average, January-June. 
' Average, March-December. 
' Average, 11 months. 

These figures show that there was not much change in prices of 
these three brands from 1913 to 1916, inclusive, though there was a 
slight upward trend. Marked increases were made in the prices of 
all three of the brands in the years 1917, 191S, and 1919. The 
increases in yearly averages from 1913 to 1919 were approximately as 
follows: Brand No. 1, 139 per cent: brand No. 2. 126 ppr cent; 
brand No. 3, 135 per cent. There was a still further advance in the 
prices of brands Nos. 1 and 2 in the first half of 1920. Figures for 
brand No. 3 are lacking for this period. The increase in the average 
for the first half of 1920 over the average for the year 1913 was 161 
per cent for brand No. 1 and 14.5 per cent for branfl No. 2. 

It will be noted that the prices of the 20 per cent protein brand ran 
only slightly lower than the prices of the two brands which carry 
over 21 per cent protein. 

Appendix Table 8 gives the prices of eight brands of dairy feeds 
on tne f. o. b. factory basis for the years 1915 to 1919, inclusive, 
with prices for all but two of the brands for the first half of 1920. 
Figures for three of the brands are lacking for 1915. All these 
brands except No. 2 are molasses feeds. 

The following statement of yearly averages taken from Appendix 
Table S is given to show the general trend of prices per ton for 
these eight brands of dairy feed: 



Brand. 


1915 


1916 


1917 


191<s 


1919 


1920' 


No.l 


$27.48 


$31.30 
>30.42 
34.45 
29.28 
2 27.42 
25.24 
30.36 
26.03 


$46.79 
41.14 
51.85 
44.85 


$58.67 
55.85 

2 63.24 
5.5.88 
55.13 
44.69 
64.19 
43.13 


$68.35 
62.06 
68.61 

2 60.88 
59.46 
40.76 
.M.50 
48. 73 


$73.31 


No.2 


70.04 


No.3 




76.41 




25.25 
27.10 
23.15 




No .'i 


66. SI 


No. 6 . . .. 


39.10 

43.91 

= 37. 69 


.56. 14 


No.7 




No. 8 


»23. 10 


59. K5 







See Api)cndix Tables. 

Marked increases in prices are shown in the years 1917 and 1918 and 
for some of the brands in 1919. There were also additional advances 
during the first half of 1920 for the six brands for which figures are 
given. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



133 



The following statement shows the amount and per cent of advance 
in prices per ton of the several brands as shown in yearly averages 
between 1915 and 1919 and between the yearly average for 1915 and 
the average for the first half of 1920.^° 





Average price. 


Increase. 


Brand. 


1915 


1919 


First 
half 
1920. 


1919 ov 


er 1915. 


First half 1920 
over 1915. 




Amount. 


Per cent. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


No. 1 


$27. 48 
1 34. 45 
25.25 
27.10 
23.15 
130.36 
120.03 


168.35 
68. 51 
60.88 
59.46 
48.76 
54.50 
48.73 


$73.31 
76.41 


$40.87 
2 34.06 
35.63 
32.36 
25.61 
'24. 14 
222.70 


148.7 
2 98.9 
141.1 
119.4 
110.6 
279.0 
287.2 


$45.83 

2 41.% 


166.8 


No.3. 


2 121.8 


No.4 




No. 5 


68. si 

56.14 
59.85' 


39. 7i 
32.99 


146.5 


No. 6 




No. 7 




No.8 


233.82 


2 129.9 







1 Average, year 1916. 



2 Increase over 1916. 



It will be noted that the prices on four brands for the year 1919 
were approximately from 110 per cent to 150 per cent above the 
averages for the year 1915, while for three other brands the 1919 
figures were about 80 per cent to 100 per cent above the 1916 aver- 
ages. The averages on five brands for the first half of 1920 ranged 
from 120 per cent to more than 165 per cent above the 1915 or 1916 
averages. 

Section 18. Prices of stock feeds. 

Appendix Table 9 gives monthly average prices of ready-mixed 
stock feeds for six brands f. o. b. factory at various points. The 
figures cover the period January, 1913, to June, 1920, except those 
for brands No. 1 and No. 2, for which the figures begin with July, 
1914, and January, 1915, respectively. Brands No. 4 and No. 6 
are dry feeds; the others all contain molasses, and brands Nos. 2, 
.3, and 5 also contain alfalfa meal. Two of the brands contain oat 
feed. The number of ingredients in these feeds differs widely from 
a simple mixture of alfalfa meal and molasses to a feed containing 
10 or more ingredients. 

The following statement of yearly averages shows the general trend 
of prices per ton of these six stock feeds: 



Brand. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


19201 


No. 1 






$27.83 
25.25 
18.92 
25.89 
26.20 
30.57 


$31.00 
29.65 
22.89 
26.95 
28.17 
32.19 


$46.83 
43.89 
32.82 
46.23 
40.92 
53.06 


$52.00 
51.25 
38.57 
48.31 
53.90 

"57.75 


$48.17 
51.54 
37.00 
52.16 
50.48 
60.32 




No. 2 








No.3 

No.4 


$19. 67 
23.22 
25.58 
26.54 


$19. 26 
25.31 
26.27 
29.25 


2 42.43 


No. 5 




No. 









' Average, January-June. 



2 Price for February missing. 



^0 In making comparisons of the figures for earlier years with those for the first 6 months of 1920, the fact 
must be kept in mind that prices of all feeds declined greatly in tho last six months of 1920, and that aver- 
ages for the year 1920 would be much lower than averages for the first half of the year. 



134 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



As in the case of dairy feeds there were only moderate increases 
in prices from 1913 to 1916, but marked advances in 1917 and 1918. 
However, three of the six brands show a lower level of prices for 
1919 than for 1918 and another a stationaiy price. All the brands 
show an advance in the price for the first half of 1920 over the average 
for the year 1919, but the increases were not uniform. 

The following statement shows the range between the minimum 
and maximum yearly averages, and the per cent of increase of the 
maximum over the minimum for each brand; also the amount and 
per cent of increase of the average for the first half of 1920 over the 
minimum yearly average. 



Brand. 


Minimum yearly 
average. 


Maximum yearly 
average. 


Increase. 


Average 
price 

first half 
1920. 


Tncrea.'feovermini- 
mumyearlyaverage. 


Year. 


-\verage 
price. 


Year. 


Average 
price. 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


No. 1 


1915 
1915 
1915 
1913 
1913 
1913 


$27. 83 
25.25 
18.92 
23.22 
25.58 
26.54 


1918 
1919 
1918 
1919 
1918 
1919 


$52.00 
51.54 
38.57 
52.16 
53.90 
60.32 


$24.17 
26.29 
19.65 
28.94 
28.32 
33.78 


86.8 
104.1 
103.9 
124.6 
110.7 
127.3 


$52.22 

57.92 
42.43 
60.29 
57.44 
07.75 


$24.39 
32. 67 
23.51 
37.07 
31.86 
41.21 


87.6 


No.2 


129.4 


No. 3 


124.3 


No. 4 


159.6 


No.5 


124.8 




155.3 







The maximum yearly averages of 1918 or 1919 for brands Nos. 2 
to 6, inclusive, ranged from 104 to 127 per cent above the minimum 
year averages of 191.3 or 1915, and the averages for the first half of 
1920 for these brands ranged from 124 per cent to 160 per cent 
above the minimum yearly averages. The relative advance in price 
of brand No. 1, as measured by the difference between the minimum 
and maximum yearly averages, was much less than for the other 
brands (only 87 per cent) . 

Section 19. Prices of horse and mule feeds. 

Appendix Table 10 gives monthly average prices of six horse and 
mule feeds, f. o. b. factory at various points, for the period January, 
1913, to June, 1920, inclusive, except for branils Nos. 5 and 6, which 
begin with January, 1914. All these brands are sweet feeds e.xcept 
No. 5. The fii'st four brands are comparatively simple mi.xtures, the 
chief ingredients being corn, oats, alfalfa, and molasses. Brands 
No. 5 and No. 6 contain oat feed. 

The yearly averages as shown in tliis table are summarized for con- 
venience in the foUowing statement. This shows a slight advance in 
prices from 1913 or 1914 to 1916, and very marked incrca.ses in 1917 
and 1918. Only two of the brands show a higher price level in 1919 
than in 1918. The five brands for which prices are given for the 
first half of 1920 show substantial ailvani'es over the 1919 price level: 



Brand. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920" 


No.l 


$24.35 
26. S6 
28.22 
25. ,i4 


$26.03 
27.59 
28.09 
27.67 
28.29 
23.96 


$26.90 
27.77 
27.57 
28.29 
28.37 
26.45 


$29.88 
31.80 
30.16 
31. S! 
29.10 
32.12 


$.50.00 
41.33 
43.39 
51.69 


$55.18 

54.74 
58.62 
57.43 
47.05 
52.78 


$55.21 
52. .58 
52. S5 
.55. 47 
55. 48 
50.22 


$61.81 


No.2 




No. 3... 


64.65 


No. 4 


60.86 


No. 6 


63.25 


No. 6 




44.07 


59. C4 









' Average, January-June. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



135 



The following statement shows the range between the minimum 
yearlv average (1913 or 1914) and the maximum yearly average (1918 
or 1919) for each brand and the per cent by which the maximum 
average exceeded tlie minimum; also the amount and per cent of 
increase of the average for the first half of 1920 over the minimum 
yearly average. 



Brand. 


Minimum yearly 
average. 


Maximum yearly 
average. 


Increase. 


Average 


Increase over mini- 
mum yearly average. 


Year. 


Average 
price. 


Year. 


Average 
price. 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


halt 1920. 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


No. 1 


1913 
1913 
1913 
1913 
1914 
1914 


S24.35 
26.86 
26.22 
25.54 
2S.29 
23.96 


1919 
1918 
1918 
1918 
1919 
1918 


$55.21 

54.74 
58.62 
57.43 
55.48 
52.78 


S30.86 
27.88 
32.40 
31.89 
27.19 
28.82 


126.7 
103.8 
123.6 
124.9 
96.1 
120.3 


S61.81 


$37.46 


153.8 


No 2 




No.3 


64.65 
60.86 
63.25 
59.94 


38.43 
35.32 
34.96 
35.98 


146.6 


No. 4 


138.3 


No.5 


123.6 


No. 6 


150.2 







The increase in prices as registered in the difference between 
minimum and maximum yearly averages, ranged from 96 per cent to 
nearly 127 per cent, and averages for the first half of 1920 were from 
about 124 per cent to 154 per cent above the minimum yearly averages. 

Section 20. Prices of hog feeds. 

Appendix Table 1 1 gives monthly average prices of four brands of 
hog feeds for the years 1917 to 1919, inclusive, and for the first half 
of 1920. Prices for brands 1 and 2 were also given for the year 1916. 

The number of ingredients in the different brands varies from 6 to 
11. Brands 1 and 2 contain both molasses and alfalfa meal, while 
.3 and 4 are dry feeds, but No. 4 contains alfalfa meal. All contain 
digester tankage, meat meal, or blood meal. Corn feed meal is also 
an ingredient common to the four brands. The guaranteed protein 
content of the four brands ranges from 12 per cent to 18 per cent. 

The following statement gives a summary of the yearly averages for 
the four brands: 



Brand. 


1916 


1917 


191S 


1919 


19201 


No. 1 


$31.33 
30.69 


$50.06 
47.29 
53.22 

2 5.5. 02 


$60.74 
58.65 
62.12 

3 55. 27 


$68.15 
65.43 
67.79 
64.89 


$73.53 


No.2. . . . 


73.64 


No.3 


72.35 


No. 4 




72.78 









1 Average, January-.lune. • 

2 Average, February-November. 
8 Average, January-October. 

Brands No. 1 and No. 2 increased rapidlv in price in each of the 
years 1917, 191S, and 1919, and in the first half of 1920. The greatest 
absolute increase in both brands was in 1917. The total increase in 
yearly averages from 1916 to 1919 for brand No. 1 was from $31.33 
to $68.15, or 117 percent. The difference between the yearly average 
for 1916 and the average for the first half of 1920 was $42.20, an in- 
crease of 135 per cent. 

Brand No. 2 shows an increase in yearly averages from 1916 to 1919 
from $30.69 to $65.43, or 113 per cent, while the difference between 



136 OOMMERriAL FEEDS. 

the average for the year 191(1 and the first half of 1920 was $42.95, 
or 140 per cent. 

Simihir comparisons can not be made for brands Nos. 3 and 4, but 
these two brands advanced from an average price of about $55 for 
1917 to between $72 and $73 for the first half of 1920. 

Section 21. Prices of calf meal. 

Calf meal is produced by a comparatively small number of manu- 
facturers. The Commission secured price statistics for three brands, 
which are given in Appendix Table 12. The figures for two brands 
begin with January,. 1916, while those for the third could be furnished 
only as far back as March, 1917. The prices for all three brands are 
brought down to June, 1920. 

These brands of calf meal differ in number of ingredients from half 
a dozen to 15 or more, and the guaranteed protein content varies from 
20 per cent to 27 per cent. 

Calf meal is very high in price as compared with feed mixtures for 
other animals, as will be seen by a comparison of the figures in Ap- 
pendix Table 12 with those of other mixed feeds already given. 

While there were considerable differences in the movement of prices 
of the different brands, as shown in the monthly averages, the general 
trend was similar. Brand No. 3 was nearly uniformly somewhat 
lower in price than the other two brands. Brand No. 2 was slightly 
higher in price than brand No. 1 in 1916 and 1917, while the reverse 
was true tor the later years. 

The yearly averages for each of the three brands are given in the 
following statement: 





Brand. 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


19201 


No. 1 




$50. 97 


$71.47 

72. 49 

2-0.53 


$88. 47 
85.24 
!M.94 


$94.03 
93.73 
88. SO 


$105. 65 


No.2 

No.3 




52. 50 


102.36 
99.39 


1 





1 Average, January-.! iine. 
' Average, March-December. 

Brands Nos. 1 and 2 .show rapid increases in each of the years 1917, 
1918, and 1919, with a further marked increase in the first six months 
of 1920. Brand No. 3 shows a marked increase in 1918 over 1917, 
only a slight advance in 1919, and another marked increase in the 
fu-st half of 1920. 

The 1919 yearly average for brand No. 1 was 84 per cent above 
the average for 1916, and the corresponding increase for brand No. 2 
was 79 per cent. The increase in the average for the first half of 1920 
over the 1916 average was 107 per cent for brand No. 1 and 95 per 
cent for brand No. 2. 

Section 22. Prices of poultry feeds. 

Appendix Tables 13 to 16 give prices of leading brands of poultry 
scratch feeds and poultry mash feeds. The scratch feeds are mix- 
tures of cracked corn and various whole grains, and ordinarily also 
contain a small percentage of sunflower seeds. There is generally not 
much difference in the kind of ingredients used by different manufac- 
turers, though there may be considerable difl'erences in the proportions 



WHOLESALE PEICES. 



137 



of the various ingredients used in different brands. The following 
list of ingredients may be considered fairly typical of this class of 
feeds: Cracked corn and whole grains of wheat, barley, oats, Kafir 
corn or milo maize, buckwheat, and sunflower seeds. Some of these 
ingredients may be omitted and others occasionally added. 

The so-called mashes are mixtures of various ground feeds and are 
used chiefly for egg production and developing and fattening young 
fowl. The mash feeds for which prices are given in Appendix Tables 
15 and 16 differ in number of ingredients from 8 to more than 20. 

Appendix Table 13 gives the average montlily prices of four scratch 
feeds for the years 1913 to 1919, with figures for the first half of 1920. 
Brand No. 1 is on the Boston freight rate basis and the other brands 
f. o. b. factory at Memphis, St. Louis, and Chicago, respectivelJ^ 

The following statement shows the yearh^ averages for these four 
brands of scratch feed: 



Brand. 


19i:! 


1914 


19ir, 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


19201 


No. 1 


$34.52 
= 31.30 
31.48 
2.'!. 98 


$.37.44 
31.94 
33.88 
31. (;4 


439.87 
30.31 
35.40 
33.57 


»t2.25 
33.09 
38.17 
35.99 


$71.80 
62.78 
66.23 
64.49 


$78. 22 
69. 82 
73. no 
70.79 


$74. 14 

3 66.72 
74.32 
69.71 




No. 2 

No. 3 


71.76 


No. 4 


77.75 







I .\verage. January-Jime. 
~ Average, .\uguyt-Deeeiiiber. 
3 Average, January-November. 

This statement shows that the trend of prices was upward but the 
increase was comparatively slight from 1913 to 1916. The striking 
feature of the statistics is the very great increase in prices in 1917 
over 1916. The yearly averages for 1917 range from 70 per cent to 
nearly 90 per cent above the averages for the preceding year. The 
trend was still upward in 191S, but the advances in that year were 
slight as compared with those of 1917. Three of the four brands 
showed a lower average price in 1919 than in 191S, and the increase 
in the average price of the other brand was slight. There were sub- 
stantial increases in the prices of all the brands in the fu'st half of 1920 
over the average for the year 1919. 

The following statement shows the advance in prices, as measui'ed 
by yearly averages, from 1913 to 1918: 



r.ran.i. 


.\.vera,ee price for 


Increase. 




1913 


1918 


Amount. 


Per cent. 


;.u. 1 

No. 2 

No.3 


$.14.52 
1 30. 31 
31.48 
28.98 


$78.22 
69.82 

!74.32 
70.79 


$43.70 
39.51 
42.84 
41.81 


120.6 
l.iO.4 


No. 4 









These figures show increases in the maximum yearly average over 
the minimum yearly average ranging from 127 per cent to 144 per 
cent. The per cent of increase of the average for the fii'st half of 1920 



138 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



over the minimum yearly average for each brand was a.s follows: 
No. 1, 135 per cent; No. "2, 137 per cent; No. 3, 149 per cent; No. 
4, 168 per cent. 

Appendix Table 14 gives monthly average prices for 5 other scratch 
feeds, but covers only the years 1915 to 1919, with figm^es for the first 
half of 1920 for all but one brand. 

The following statement shows the yearly averages for the several- 
brands : 



Brand. 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920.1 


No. 1 . 


»S35.86 
31.56 
33. RO 
35.28 
31.63 


$38.23 
35.79 
36. « 
36.79 
32.92 


$6.5.80 
63.67 

• 61.32 
64.18 
56.83 


$72.44 
'68.53 
72.27 
70.84 
67.14 


$72.74 
68.39 
72.67 
70.46 
66.16 


$77. 34 


No.2 


78.48 


No. 3 


73.12 


No. 4 

No. 5 


70.31 



1 Average, January-June. 

* Average, June-December. 

> Average eleven months (April missing). 

* Average seven monOis (.\pril-Angust missing). 

The prices of all these brands of scratch feeds also show a verj^ great 
increase in 1917 over 1916. The per cent of increase, as showTi in the 
yearly averages, was nearly the same for the several brands, ranging 
only from 72 per cent to 78 per cent. There was also a considerable 
advance in 1918 over 1917 for all brands, but this advance did not 
continue in 1919. 

The following statement shows the minimum and maximum yearly 
averages for the several brands with the amount and per cent of in- 
crease for each; also the difi'erence between the yearly average for 1915 
and the average for the first half of 1920 for four of the five brands: 



Brand. 


Vearly average. 


Increase. 


Average 

first half 

1920. 


Increa.se over 1915. 


1915. 


1918. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


No. 1 


1 i$35.86 


«»72.74 
68.53 
>72.67 
70.84 
67.14 


$36.88 
30.97 
39.07 
35.56 
35.51 


102.8 
117.1 
116.3 
100.8 
112.3 


S77.34 
78.48 
76.12 
76.31 


$41.48 
46.92 
«2.52 
41.03 


115.7 


No.2 

No. 3 

No.4 

No.5 


31.66 

' 33.60 

3.5.28 

1 31.63 


148.7 
126..') 
116.3 











1 Average, June-Pecember. 

' Average for 1919, maximum yearly average. 

These figures show increases varying from 101 per cent to 117 per 
cent between the yearly average for 1915 (minimum) and the average 
for 1919 or 19 IS (maximum yearly average). The mcreases in the 
averages for the first six months of 1920 over the average for the year 
1915 range from 116 per cent to 149 per cent. 

Appendix Table 15 gives monthly average prices of two brands of 
poultry mash for the period January. 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. 

There was a sli<;ht upward movement of the price level fi'om 1913 
to 1916 for these brands, as for most other brands of mixed feeds the 

E rices of which have been under discussion. The prices of these 
rands did not advance as greatly in 1917 as did the prices of scratch 
feeds for which figures have already been given. Brand No. 1 shows 
an increase in the yearly average from 1 9 Hi to 1 9 1 7 of only 46 per cent 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 



139 



and brand No. 2, 49 per cent. Substantial increases in the prices 
of both brands were made in 1918, and a slight increase in 1919 for 
brand No. 1 and a considerable increase for brand No. 2. The yearly 
av^erage price of brand No. 1 increased from .137.14 in 1913 to $73.26 
in 1919, or 97 per cent, and the increase for the first half of 1920 over 
the 1913 average was about 120 per cent. Brand No. 2 advanced 
from $34.48 in 1913 to $74.88 in 1919, or 117 per cent, while the 
increase in the average for the first half of 1920 over the average for 
1913 was 135 per cent. 

Appendix Table 16 gives the prices of three brands of poultry mash, 
but covers only the years 1917 to 1919 and the first half of 1920. 

There were some fluctuations in prices, but all brands advanced 
greatly in price, reaching a high level at the end of the summer of 
1919, recedmg some in the later months of that year, and then advanc- 
ing to maximum prices in May and June, 1920. Brand No. 1 in- 
creased in price from $43.67 in January, 1917, to $89.75 in June, 1920. 
Brand No. 2 advanced from $43.17 m January, 1917, to $84.67 in 
May, 1920. 

The following increases are shown between the yearly averages for 
1917 and the six-months' average for 1920: 



Brand. 


Average, 
1917. 


Average, 
January- 
June, 
1920. 


Increase. 


Amount. 


Percent. 


No. 1 


$55.82 
58.10 
61.70 


S82.86 
79.36 
85.28 


S27.04 
21.26 
23.58 


48.4 


No.2.... 


36.6 


No.3 


38.2 







Section 23. Price decline last six months of 1920. 

The main body of information collected during the investigation 
covered the period prior to July 1, 1920. In the consideration of 
prices of feedingstuns, however, the treatment would be far from 
complete if allusion were not made to the marked decline in prices 
of all feeds which occurred during the last six months of 1920. Prices 
of some feeds, both straight and ready-mixed, on December 31 were 
less than one-half of what they were at the end of June. This decline 
went on almost uninterruptedly from July to December, from week 
to week, with only now and then a slight rally. 

Decline in prices of straight feeds. — Figures have been 
gathered showing the weekly prices of some of the principal feeds. 
The straight feeds selected are bran, middlings, cottonseed meal, 
linseed meal, corn gluten feed, alfalfa meal, and hominy feed. The 
decline in the prices of these feeds between June 26, 1920, and Decem- 
ber 31, 1920, was as follows: 



S pring wheat bran, Minneapolis 

Spring wheat mldalings, Minneapolis 

Linseed meal. Minneapolis 

Cottonseed meal, Memphis 

Corn glmen feed, Chicago 

Alfalfa meal. Chicago 

Hominy feed, Chicago 



Price, 
per ton, 
June 26. 



$50.50 
55.50 
62.50 
62.50 



Price, 
per ton 
Dec. 31. 



t26.50 
24.00 
38.50 
27.00 
48.00 
28.00 
.32. 50 



Decline 
per ton. 



S24.00 
31.50 
•«.00 
35.50 
20.75 
18.00 
37.50 



47.5 

56.8 
38.4 
56.8 
30.2 
39.1 
63.6 



140 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



The table following shows the weekly prices of these feeds during 
the last six months of 1920, taken from the Market Reporter, Depart- 
ment of Agriculture : 

Table 29. — Prices oj seven imporlant straight feeds per ton in carload lots, by ueeks, 
June s?6' to Dec. SI, ISM, inclusive.^ 



June 26. 
Julys.. 
July 10. 
July 17. 
July 24. 
July 31 . 
Aug. 7.. 
Aug. 14. 
Aug. 21. 
Aug. 28. 
Sept. 4.. 
Sept. 11. 
Sept. 18. 
Sept. 2.5. 
Oct. 2.. 
Oct. 9.. 
Oct. 16. 
Oct. 23. 
Oct. 30. 
Nov. 6.. 
Nov. 13. 
Nov. 20. 
Nov. 27. 
Dec. 4.. 
Dec. 11. 
Dec. 18. 
Dec. 25. 
Dec. 31. 



Spring 
wheat bran 
Minneap- 
olis. 



S50.50 
50.00 
49.50 
48.50 
45.00 
43.00 
39.50 
40.50 
43.00 
42.50 
39.00 
38.50 
38.00 
37.00 
34.00 
28.50 
29.50 
31.00 
30.00 
32.00 
31.00 
31.50 
30.00 
28.50 
28.00 
25.00 
2.5.50 
26.50 



Spring I Cottonseed 
wheat mid- meal (30 
Ungs, Min- percent), 
neapoUs. ftlemphis. 



$65.50 
55.00 
54.50 
54.00 
52.00 
52.00 
50.00 
51.00 
53.00 
53.00 
48.00 
48. .50 
48.00 
44.00 
38.00 
29.00 
29.00 
30.50 
28.50 
30.00 
29.00 
29.00 
26.50 
23.50 
23.50 
23.00 
23.50 
24.00 



S62.50 
61.50 
60 00 
60.00 
59.00 
56.00 
56.00 
56.00 
55.00 
63.00 
52.50 
62.00 
51.00 
49.50 
45.00 
42.00 
37.50 
36.00 
37. 00 
38.00 
35.50 
32.00 
31.00 
29.00 
29.00 
27.00 
27.00 
27.00 



Linseed 

meal, 

.Miiineap- 

oUs. 


Corn gluten 


Alfalfa 


feed, 




Chicago. 


Chicago. 


$62.50 


$68.75 


2$46.00 


63.50 


68.75 


245.50 


63.50 


63.75 


245.25 


63.50 


64.25 


'40.00 


63.00 


64.25 


41.00 


62.00 


64.25 


37.50 


62.00 


64.25 


38.50 


60.50 
62.00 


64.2.5 
64.25 


39.00 
40.00 


62.00 


63.75 


41.00 


63.00 


63.75 


39.60 


6:i.00 


58.75 


38.00 


63.00 


58.75 


37.00 


63.00 


53.75 


36.50 


62.80 


53.76 


35.00 


61.00 


48.76 


32.00 




43. 75 
43.75 


32.50 
32.00 


59.00 


54.00 


43.75 


30.00 


.52.00 


43.75 


32.00 


50.00 


43.75 


31.00 


49.00 


4K0O 


31.00 


48.00 


48.00 


31.00 


40.50 


48.00 


30.00 


41.00 


48.00 


29.50 


40.00 


48.00 


28.60 


40.00 


48.00 


28.00 


38.50 


48.00 


28.00 



Hominy 

feed, 
Chicago. 



"$70.00 
'70.00 
>70.00 
'63.00 
63.00 
62.50 
62.00 

' '62.00 
62.00 
5.'!.50 
60.00 
55. OO 
45.00 
40.00 
40.00 
37.00 
34.50 
34.00 
36.00 
37.00 
34.00 
33.00 
37.00 
35.60 
35.00 
33.50 
32.50 



1 From the Weekly Market Reporter, of the Department of Agriculture. 
' Figures furnished by the Department of Agricultnre. 

Decline in prices of ready-mlxep feeds. — The several classes 
of ready-mi.xed feeds also fell off in price diirin<T; the last six months 
of 1920. The declines in prices of the different brands varied widely, 
but on the whole the drop was practically as great as that for the 
straight feeds just discussed. 

Dairy feeds with protein content of 20 per cent or over sold at 
about $75 on June 20, 1920. On December .31, 1920, prices of these 
feeds had fallen to about $45, or 40 per cent. Two hicrh protein 
content dairy feeds had declined only about 27 per cent during this 
period. 

The decline in the lower protein content dairy feeds varied greatly 
for the different feeds. Prices of one such feed fell from $63.75 on 
June 20, 1920, to $29 on December 31, 1920, or 54.5 per cent; while 
another with the same protein content sold at $64 on June 20 and 
declined only to $51 on December 31, or 20 per cent. Other feeds 
in this group declined as much as 46 per cent and as little as 36 per 
cent. 

The drop in prices of ready-mixed stock feeds was fairly uniform 
among the different brands. The greatest decline was 52.5 per cent, 
from $54.75 on June 20 to $26 on ])eceinber 31, and the least from 
$54 to $37 for tlie same period, or 31.5 per cent. Several other 
brands of ready-mixed stock feed declined about 47 per cent. 



WHOLESALE PRICES. 141 

Horse and mule feeds also fell off greatly in price in the last half of 
1920. Only 3 brands out of a total of 18 showed a decline of less 
than 40 per cent, and 12 declined at least 45 per cent. One brand 
which sold at $88 June 20 fell to $41.50 at the end of December, 
while another which also sold at .|S8 June 20 fell only to $56. These 
two brands represent the extremes in the per cent of decline, viz, 
53 per cent and 36 per cent. The prices of other brands of horse and 
mule feeds ranged from $59.50 to $78.50 on June 20, and from $33 
to $41 on December 31. 

Several brands of hog feeds for which prices were secured showed 
about 40 per cent decline in the last six months of 1920. The prices 
on these brands ranged from $72 to $80.75 per ton June 20, and 
from $43.50 to $48 December 31. One brand which brought $82 
at the earlier date fell only to $60 at the later date, a decline of only 
27 per cent as compared with a maximum decline of 45 per cent. 

Three brands of calf meal, which ranged in price from $103 to $108 
June 20, decreased from 18 per cent to 34 per cent by December 31. 

Fourteen brands of poultry scratch feeds declined from 38.5 per 
cent to 52 per cent. The decline in the prices of eight brands was 
more than 45 per cent. Prices June 20 ranged from $74 to $90.50 
and on December 31 from $39 to $52. 

Poultry mash feeds showed relatively small declines from June 20 
to December 31, 1920. The prices of five brands fell from 27 per 
cent to 37 per cent. Prices on these brands June 20 ranged from 
$81 to $91, and on December 31 from $55.50 to $66. 



Chapter VI. 

COSTS, PROFITS. INVESTMENT, AND RETURN ON INVEST- 
MENT OF FEED MANUFACTURERS, 1913-1919. 

Section 1. Introductory. 

Scope and comi'anies covered. — A number of rommercial feed 
manufacturers were visited for the purpose of securing data from 
their books regarding cost, profit, and investment. Due to the in- 
complete records of many companies visited, it was found that with 
the exception of 14 concerns the data were not sufficiently complete 
to show the results of the business. It was the original intention of 
the Commission to secure, for comparative purposes, data from all 
companies studied for the years 1913 to 1919, inclusive. This was 
impossible, however, as several of the companies visited began opera- 
tions after 1913 and the records of other companies were not com- 
plete as far back as that date. As a result the Commission compiled 
three sets of figures, one set covering a period of seven years, 1913- 
1919, combming the results of three companies; a second set cover- 
ing a period of five years, 1915-1919, which combines the results of 
nine companies, including the three whose results are sho■\^^l for 
seven years; and a third set covering a period of three years, 1917- 
1919, inclusive, which combines the results of 14 companies, includ- 
ing the nine companies in the second set. 

In presenting these tables the Commission does not attempt to 
draw any conclusions applicable to the feed industry in its entirety, 
or even to mixed feeds as a whole. The companies included, how- 
ever, arc thoroughly representative of the mixed feed industry. The 
results shown by the tables, therefore, may probably be considered 
as representative of the situation in this important branch of the 
industry. The companies whose results are presented are as follows: 

Alfororn Milling Co St. Louis, Mo. 

Arcady Farms Milling Co Chicago, III . 

The Buckeye Cotton Oil Co Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Chapin & Co Chicago, 111. 

Clover Leaf Milling Co Buffalo, N. Y. 

The Corno Mills Co St. Louis, Mo. 

Edgar-Morgan Co Memphis, Tenn. 

Golden Cirain Milling Co East St. Louis, 111. 

Hales & Edwards Co. (now Ilalcs & Hunter Co.) Chicago, 111. 

The Larrowe Milling Co Detroit Mich. 

M. C. Peters Mill Co Omaha, Nebr. 

Superior Feed Co Memphis, Tenn. 

Tarkio Molasses Feed Co Kansas City, Mo. 

The Ubiko Milling Co Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Section 2. Definitions and adjustments. 

In order more readily to understand and interpret the figures ap- 
pearing in the following tables it is desirable briefly to discuss the 
adjustments necessary to render comparable the results obtained and 
to define the meanings of various terms mentioned in the headings 
herein. 

Net sales. — The term net sales as used in this chapter means the 
total sales after deducting all returns, allowances, and freio;ht. 

Cost of sales — Inventories. — No revision was made by the 
Commission of the inventory figures as carried on the companies' 
142 



COSTS, PROFITS, INVKSTJIENTS, ETC. 143 

books. All companies, except tliree, valued their inventories at 
average cost. Of the three companies that valued their inventories 
at the market, two were small, while the third was one of the larger 
companies. As the valuation of the inventories of the three com- 
panies does not greatly afl'ect the results of the combined companies, 
no attempt was made to revalue these inventories at cost. 

Depreciation. — The practice of commercial feed manufacturers 
with respect to depreciation varies considerably. Some treat depre- 
ciation as an element of cost and make a yearly charge thereto; 
others make no periodical charge for depreciation, but at the end of 
a prosperous year charge to profit and loss such a lump sum as is 
considered an adequate provision for that year; while still others 
make yearly charges to profit and loss, of lump sums, usually what 
they can afford. In orcfer to place all companies on a comparable 
basis with respect to depreciation the Commission has substituted 
computations of its own for those shown by the books of the various 
companies. It was found that several of the best-managed com- 
panies allowed as an average charge about 2^ per cent on Duildings 
and 7i per cent on machinery and equipment, which figures were 
adopted Dy the Commission, and yearly provision for depreciation was 
computed on this basis for each company and charged to manufac- 
turing costs. 

Intercomp.\nv PROFITS. — Oiic instance was encountered in wliich 
the cost of sales was increased through the inclusion of intercompany 
profit. In this case the Commission in preparing the profit ancl loss 
accounts eliminated all such profit. 

EuMiNATioN OF RESERVES. — In all cascs where it was found that 
there had been included in the cost of sales any provision for a gen- 
eral or nonspecific reserve, such as a contingency reserve or profit- 
sharing fund reserve, etc., the Commission adjusted the cost of sales 
by the elimination of such charges, as they were considered as appro- 
priations of earnings rather than charges against the profits of the 
companies. 

General and administrative expenses. — From general and ad- 
ministrative expenses the Commission has eliminated any charge for 
Federal income and excess-profits tax, as the provision for or pay- 
ment of such taxes was not considered a proper operating charge. 

Selling expense. — In all cases bad debts were eliminated as an 
item of selling expense and were charged to financial expenses. 

Net operating profit. — Net operating profit represents profit 
derived from the manufacture and sale of commercial feeds before 
making any deduction or addition, unless otherwise stated, for interest 
paid or received, cash discount allowed or received, and before adding 
or deducting the income and expense derived or incurred from purely 
financial transactions, or from transactions not connected with the 
actual operations of the feed business. The item "interest received 
and cash discounts, " included in the statements, represents largely 
interest received on the receivables, the cash discounts being shown 
by only two companies, and in both instances being small. 

Investment. — Investment as here employed represents the actual 
cash or its equivalent invested in the business either bv the stock- 
holders or those who loan capital to the business. The following 
table shows the total investment irrespective of the ownership of the 
capital involved, which is represented by stockliolders' investment, 
(the capital stock and sui'plus) plus borrowed capital, the borrowed 



144 



COMMKIU'IAL l-IOKD; 



capital rcprcsonting the averafjo montlily balance of interest-bearing 
indebtedi -ss. There has been included in the investment the amount 
of an'' ger ?ral reserves, namely, reserves that can not be allocated to 
a specific asset, such as a contingency reserve. There have been 
eliminated from the value of the companies' book assets all amounts 
representing increases in valuation oi the assets by reappraisal and 
any amounts representing good will, patented processes, or the like, 
unless an actual cash consideration was paid for the same. There 
have also been eliminated investments considered by the Commission 
as "outside investments" which represent the company's holdings 
of Liberty bonds, stocks and bonds of other companies, and buildings 
and other assets not used for purposes of the feed business. 

In those cases where the company has engaged in other outside 
operations, or where the feed mill is a department of a large corpora- 
tion, the investment lias been segregated in the balance sheet and 
allocated, in proper proportions, to the feed operations and to the other 
operations which have been considered outside investments. 

Rate of retukn on investment. — The rate of retm-n on invest- 
ment represents the percentage which the amount of the net operat- 
ing profit bears to the investment. The amount of net operating 
profit applying against the investment is found before deducting 
interest. As the borrowings have been included in the investment, 
interest has not been deducted from the profit. This rate of return 
reflects the result of operations in the mixed-feed business as it has 
actually been conductetl. 

Section 3. Unit costs of producing and selling ready-mixed feeds. 

The following table shows the unit costs per ton of producing and 
selling ready-mixed feeds as well as the average sales price, the net 
operating profit, and the number of tons produced and sold. It was 
found that the cost records kept by all companies visited covered the 
entire production of the mill regardless of the kintl or grade of feed 
manufactured. Tliis made it impossible for the Commission to 
allocate the costs to the various classes of feed manufactured. The 
unit figures presented below, therefore, are those of the composite 
output of all classes and grades of feed mixed. 

Table 30.— Unit costs per ton of producing and selling ready-mixed feeds, /or groups of 
representative mamt/acturers, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive. 



Years and number of com- 
panies. 


Materials. 


Sacks. 


Labor. 


Millover- 
liead. 


Total 
manufac- 
turing 
cost. 


Inven- 
tory 
adjust- 
ment. 


Manufac- 
turing 
cost of 
sales. 


3 companies: 


t23.59 
23.72 
2-1.12 
25.32 
33.46 
45.64 
50.44 

20.43 
22.24 
29.34 
40.10 
42. 76 

32. 45 
43.14 
45.93 


$1.55 
1.24 
1.21 
1.84 
2.18 
3.89 

2. as 

1.34 
1.83 
2.37 
3.89 
3.47 

2.53 
4.35 
3.68 


$0.55 
.52 
.57 
.69 
.90 
1.36 
1.40 

.63 
.76 
1.01 
1.44 
1.51 

.96 
1.36 
1.52 


$0.57 
.64 

.57 
.76 

!92 
1.04 

.63 
.82 
.96 
1.17 
1.14 

.87 
1.09 
1.12 


$26.26 
26.12 
26.47 
2S.61 
37.29 
51.81 
55.56 

23.03 
25.65 
33.68 
46.60 

48.88 

36.81 
49.94 
52.25 




$26.26 






26.12 




$0.03 
.02 
.01 
.13 
.04 

.01 

1.01 

.14 

.11 

, '.01 

.09 

.07 


26.44 


1916 


28.59 


1917 


37.28 


191S.. .. 


51.68 




55.52 


9 companies: 

1915 


23.02 


1916 


25.66 


1917 


33.54 


1918 


46.49 


1919 


48.89 


14 companies: 

1917 


36.72 




49.87 




52.25 









COSTS, PROFITS, INVESTMENTS, ETC. 



145 



Table 30. — Unit costs per ton of producing and selling ready-mixed feeds, for groups of 
representative manufacturers, by years, 1913-1919, inclusive — Continued. 



Years and number otcom- 
panies. 


General 
and ad- 
ininistra- 
live ex- 
penses. 


Selling 
expense. 


rommor- 
cial cost 
of sales. 


Net 
sales. 


Net oper- 
. afing 
profit. 


Mil 

Tons 
pro- 
duced. 


Tons 
sold. 


3 companies: 


JO. 79 
.79 
.81 
.72 
.92 
1.01 
1.02 

.85 
.92 
1.00 
1.21 
1.16 

.99 
1.15 
1.19 


SO. 92 
1.06 
.98 
1.03 
1.22 
1.41 
2.08 

1.18 
1.17 
1.16 
1.44 
2.04 

1.23 
1.34 
1.80 


$27.97 
27.97 
28.23 
30.34 
39.42 
54.10 

^.62 

2.5.05 
27.75 
35.70 
49.14 
52.09 

38.94 
52.36 
55.24 


$29.00 
29.30 
29.65 
31. 13 
43.67 
56.01 
62.40 

26.56 
28.32 
38.29 
51.11 
54.89' 

41.34 
54.09 
57.55 


$1.03 
1.33 
1.42 
.79 
4.25 
1.91 
3.78 

1.51 

.57 
2.59 
1.97 
2.80 

2.40 
1.73 
2.31 


165,536 
169,688 
152,591 
181,330 
186,904 
164,6.57 
173,650 

356,534 
368,845 
369,045 
370,032 
439,741 

545, 764 
596, 307 
733,757 




1914 


160, 638 


1915 


153,546 
183,327 


1916 


1917 


185,833 
162, 763 


19IS 


1919 


176,699 


9 companies: 
1915. 


357 641 


1916 


369*826 


1917 


368, 725 




1919 




14 companies: 

1917 


544,971 


1918 


1919.. 









A study of Table 30 indicates that the years 1913, 1914, and 1915 
were normal ones for the companies whose results are combined in 
the 3-company group. The average cost of materials, which is the 
chief item, increased slightly, while the average cost of sacks showed 
a considerable decrease for such a small item. There were very small 
increases in the other elements of cost and expense as well as in the 
commercial cost of sales, which advanced only $0.26 per ton. The 
average sales price per ton increased slightly more than did the com- 
mercial cost of sales, which resulted in an increase m the net operating 
profit per ton from $1.03 for 1913 to$1.42for 1915. From all appear- 
ances these profits are actual trade profits and may be considered as 
representative results during a normal competitive period. 

In 1916 the manufacturers encountered new conditions which 
they were apparently unable to overcome during the year, and conse- 
quently the favorable results obtained during the previous years were 
not maintained in 1916. Toward the end of the year feedingstuff 
prices began to Increase and reflected moderate advances in the 1916 
cost figures over those of 1915. The average cost of materials ad- 
vanced $1.20 per ton for the 3-company group and $1.81 per ton for 
the 9-company group, the other elements of cost and e.xpense having 
increased $0.90 and $0.S7 for the groups respectively, the largest in- 
dividual increase being in the cost of sacks ($0.63 and $0.49). These 
advances resulted in increases in the total manufacturing cost of over 
$2 a ton for both the three and nine company groups, as compared 
with 1915, and accounted for practically all of the increase in the com- 
mercial cost of sales, which advanced, from 1915 to 1916, $2.11 per 
ton for the 3-company group and $2.70 for the 9-c.ompany group. 
The average sales price per ton, however, advanced only $1.48 for 
the 3-company group and $1.76 for the 9-com|iany group, with the 
result that the selling price was not sufficient to meet the increased 

42976°— 21 10 



146 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

costs and realize as large profits as those obtained in previous years. 
Th(^ net operating profit per ton for the o-eompany group decreased 
$0.63, or from $1.42 for 1915 to $0.79 for 1916, while for the 9-com- 
pany group the decrease was slightly greater ($0.94), or from $1.51 
for 1915 to $0.57 for 1916. 

The increase in prices of raw materials which began in 1916 con- 
tinued even more rapidly throughout 1917, causing marked increases 
in the manufacturing costs per ton. The average cost of materials 
for the 3-company group increased from $25.32 for 1916 to $33.46 
for 1917, or $8.14, while the increase for tlio 9-company group was 
from $22.24 to $29.34, an increase of $7.10 per ton, or about $1 per 
ton less. The increases in the two groups from 1916 to 1917 repre- 
sented 31 per cent of the 1916 cost. The other elements of cost and 
expense did not increase (10.93 and |1) proportionally as much as 
did the cost of materials. The increase in the cost of materials 
represented about 90 per cent of the increase in the commercial 
cost of sales, which advanced $9.08 (from $30.34 to $39.42) for the 
3-company gfroup and $7.95, or from $27.75 for 1916 to $35.70 for 

1917, for the 9-company group. The average sales price advanced 
$12.54 for the 3-company group and $9.97 for the 9-company group. 
It will be noted that the mcrease in the average sales price for 1917 
was considerably larger than the increase in the commercial cost of 
sales, which probably indicates that the manufacturers not only made 
ample provision for the increases in costs and expenses but also 
realized additional profit by taking into consideration to some 
extent the replacement value of raw materials when making their 
selling prices for this year. Thus the large increases in the net 
operating profit of $3.46 and $2.02 per ton for the two groups, respec- 
tively, over the preceding year, include a certain amount of profit 
derived from the increase in value of the raw materials during the 
period of their conversion into mixed feeds. The amount of this 
profit can not be computed or even estimated with any degree of 
accuracy. 

The prices of feedingstuffs in general continued to advance durmg 

1918. These mcreases were not as great as in 1917. The average 
cost of raw materials showed a considerably greater advance in this 
year than in any other year durmg the period covered. For the 
3-company group the average cost of materials increased $12.18 over 
1917, and for the 9 and 14 company groups $10.76 and $10.69, re- 
spectiively. These advances represented relative increases of from 
33 per cent to 37 per cent over the preceding year, nearly 100 per 
cent over the cost in 1913 for the three companies and over that 
of 1915 for the nine companies. The costs of sacks and labor also 
showed the largest annual increase of the period during 191S. The 
cost of sacks j)('r ton increased $1.71 for the 3-com{)any group, $1.52 
for the 9-company group, and $1.82 for the 14-compaiiy group. 
Labor and mill overhead also advanced consiiierably. 

The increase in the cost of materials in 1918 represented about 
80 per cent of the increase in the commercial cost of sales. This 
item advanced $14.68 over 1917 for the 3-company group, 
$13.44 for the 9-company group, and $13.42 for the 14-company 
group. The average sales price, however, in 1918 advanced consid- 



COSTS, PROFITS, INVESTMENTS, ETC. 147 

erably less than the commercial cost of sales, i. e., $12.34 for the 
.3-company group, .$12.82 for the 9-company group, and $12.75 
for the 14-company group. This situation was approximately the 
reverse of 1917, when the advance in sales prices was considerably 
greater than the advance in the commercial cost of sales. The 
smaller advance in sellino: prices than in commercial cost of sales in 
1918 was probably due m some measure to the regulations of the 
Food Administration. As already pointed out (Chap. V, sec. 16), 
a regulation issued January 28, 1918, provided that licensed manu- 
facturers of mi.xcd feeds should not take more than a reasonable 
profit in the sale of any feedings tuffs. A regulation issued September 
26, 1918, specified maximum margins of profit for mixed-feed manu- 
facturers both on individual sales and on gross sales.' 

The Food Administration regulations did not go into effect until 
late in the year. It is probable, therefore, that their effect was con- 
siderably less than would have been the case had they applied to 
the industry during the entire year. The extremely heavy increase 
in costs in 1918, especially mill costs, together with the effect of the 
Food Administration regulations, resulted in a heavy decline in the 
net operating profit per ton in 1918. The profit per ton in 1918 was 
only $1.91 iFor the 3 companies, $1.97 for the 9 companies, and 
$1.73 for the 14 companies, as compared with $4.25, $2.59, and $2.40 
per ton for the same groups in 1917. 

Prices of feedingstuffs continued to advance throughout 1919, 
and costs also increased in this year as compared with 1918. Both 
increases in costs and prices, however, were on the whole much 
less than in the two preceding years. In 1919 the cost of materials 
increased only $4.80 per ton for the three-company group over 1918 
and about $2.80 for the other two groups. These increases, however, 
were partially offset by considerable declines in the cost of sacks, 
which showed decreases of $1.21, 42 cents, and 67 cents for the three 
groups, respectively. With the exception of selling expense, which 
increased about 60 cents a ton over 1918, the remaining costs and 
expenses showed only small increases. 

The commercial cost of sales, wliichin 1919 advanced $4.52 for the 
3-company group and about $2.90 for each of the others, represented 
but a fraction of the increase which occurred in 1918. Average 
sales prices, however, showed much greater increases than the com- 
mercial cost of sales. For the 3-company group they advanced $6.39, 
for the 9-company group $3.78, and the 14-company group $3.46. 
The relatively greater increases in sales prices than in the commer- 
cial cost of sales resulted in very profitable prices per ton in 1919. 
The net operating profits of $3.78, $2.80, and $2.31 for the 3, 9, and 14 
company groups, respectively, in this year compared favorably with 
liigh profits of $4.25, $2.59, and $2.40 for the same groups in 1917. 

A short survey of the entire period 1913-1919 indicates that from 
1913 to 1915 there was practically no change in either the cost of 
materials or the commercial cost of sales per ton and but a slight 
advance in the average sales price, reflecting a nominal increase in 

1 See p. 131, note 4S. The price of corn is reported to bo one of the chief barometers by which the prices 
of mixed feeds are gauged. If this is true, the decrease in the price of corn during 191.S rnay have caused 
the manufacturers to fix lower sales prices for mixed feeds than would have been the case had tlie price of 
corn been higher. 



148 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

net operating profit. In 1916 moderate increases occurred in all 
costs and expenses as well as in the average sales price. Plowever, 
the increase in the commercial cost of sales was relatively greater 
than the increase in the average sales price, which resulted in a 
decrease in the net operating profit per ton. In 1917, however, 
the increase in the average sales price was considerably greater than 
the advance in the commercial cost of sales, with the result that a 
much larger net operaling profit per ton was shown tlian in preceeHng 
years. In 1918 costs and expenses increased even more than in 
1917, but presumably (kie to the Food Administration regulations 
the manufacturers were unable to realize a correspon(Hngly higher 
sales price, and as a consecjuence profits decreased from the 1917 
figures. In 1919 the increases in the cost of materials, commercial 
cost of sales, and average sale prices were much smaller than in 1917 
or 1918, but in the absence of Government regulation the advance 
in the average sales price was considerably greater tiian tlie increase 
in the commercial cost of sales, and the manufacturers were able 
to realize net operating profits as large or nearly as lar^e as in 1917. 

An analysis or the large profits of 1917 and 1919 for tne nine-com- 
pany group brings out an interesting comparison. Table 32 shows that 
the increase of 1917 over 191.5 in the average cost of materials was 
44 per cent, for the commercial cost of sales 43 per cent, and for the 
average sales price 44 per cent, while the net operating profit for 1917 
represented a 72 per cent increase over that of 191.5. In this instance 
the net operating profit showed a considerably larger relative increase 
than did the average costs or the average sales price. For 1919, 
however, the reverse was true. The cost of materials for 1919 
increased 109 per cent of the 191.5 figure, the commercial cost of sales 
108 per cent, and the average sales price 107 per cent, while the net 
operating profit increased but 85 per cent of its 1915 figure. 

With lew exceptions all costs and expenses increased 100 per cent 
or more from 1915 to 1919. The cost of materials represented about 
83 per cent (actual range 81 per cent to 86 per cent) of the commercial 
cost of sales. - 

The commercial cost of sales in turn averaged about 95 per cent 
(actual range 90 per cent to 98 per cent) of tlie average sales price 
and, relatively, the cost of materials represented close to 80 per cent 
of the average sales price. 

The average sales price increased .'828.33 per ton from 1915 to 1919. 
This increase was composed of the following increases: .'$22.33 in the 
cost of materials, .S4.71 in the other elements of cost and expense 
combined, and '$1.29 in the net operating profit. In this case the 
increase in the cost of materials represented 79 per cent of the 
increase in the average sales price and clearly indicates the pre- 
ponderance of the cost of materials in the high prices of 1919. 

Section 4. Investment, profits, and rate of return on investment. 

The following tabic presents the investment, operating profit, 
and the rate of return on investment for the three groups of com- 
panies whoso costs are shown in Table 30: 



^ In making this comparison the inventory adjustment has not been considered, as it is very small in 
each year and its eflect on the figures as a whole is slight. 



COSTS, PROFITS, INVESTMENTS, ETC. 



149 



Table 31. — Investment and profit oj groups oj ready-mixed /eed mamijacturers, by years, 
1913-1919, inclusive. 





1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


3 companies: 


$1,142,782 

$4,800,511 

?170,331 

3.55 
4.20 

14.90 


$1,271,916 

$4,883,424 

$221,652 

4.54 
3.84 

17.43 


$1,332,666 

$4,552,181 

$217,937 

4.79 
3.42 

16. 3.'i 

$2,353,066 

$9,497,388 

$538,541 

5.67 
4.04 

22.89 


$1,465,078 

$5,707,237 

$145,250 

2.. 54 
3.90 

9.91 

$2,747,447 

$10,474,254 

$209, 150 

2.00 
3.81 

7.61 


$1,684,978 

$8,114,887 

$789,557 

9.73 
4.82 

46.86 

$3,454,063 

$14,119,410 

$957, 710 

6.78 
4.09 

27.73 

$5,008,166 
$22, .530, 880 
$1,308,817 

5.81 
4.50 

26.13 


$2,602,115 

$9,116,429 

$311,116 

3.41 
3.50 

11.96 

$5,446,077 

$18,812,301 

$726,059 

3.86 
3.46 

13.33 

$8,318,810 
$32,132,995 
$1,024,363 

3.19 
3.86 

12.31 


$2,410,509 
$11,025,967 




Net operating profit.. 

Percent of net oper- 
ating profit on net 
sales 

Investment turnover. 

Per cent of profit on 

investment 

9 companies: 


$669,295 

6.07 
4.57 

27.76 

.$5, 569, 445 








$24,329,444 








$1,242,407 


Percent of net oper- 
ating profit on net 






5.11 








4.37 


Percent of profit on 






22.31 


14 companies: 






$8, 444, 752 
$42,389,819 






















$1,699,036 


Per cent of net oper- 
ating profit on net 










4.01 












5.02 


Per cent of profit on 










20.12 















An analysis of the individual statements of the various com- 
panies whose results are combined in this table indicates in general 
that the increases in plant and equipment were chiefly taken care of 
by the reinvestment of earnings. A greater problem was the financing 
of the materials used in the production of feeds. The purchasing 
policy of mixed-feed manufacturers evidently has been to accumulate 
hirge inventories and enter into long-time contracts for materials 
at such times as the manufacturer considers the market favorable. 
The manufacturer in order to finance such purchases has found it 
necessary to secure large amounts of money on short-time loans. 

It will be noted from Table 31 that the investment shown therein 
was greatly increased during the years 1917, 1918, and 1919. Wliile 
this increase was due to some extent to an increase in the fixed assets 
of the company, the larger part of the increase was due to the increase 
in value of the inventories and an increase in the borrowing necessary 
to finance them. The decrease in the investment for the three- 
company group in 1919 was due to a decrease in the amount of bor- 
rowings. 

Table 31 shows that the amount of net sales also increased greatly 
in 1917, 1918, and 1919, which was due almost entirely to the in- 
creased prices of mixed feeds per ton, as Table 30 shows that with 
the exception of the 14-company group for 1919 the number of 
tons sold did not vary appreciably. 

The per cent of net operating profit on net sales varied consid- 
erably. The lowest rate occurred in 1916 and the highest in 1917. 
The average rates of profit on sales for the period covered by the 



150 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

results for the three gi'oiips of companies were 5.24 per cent for the 
3-company ?;roiip, 4.78 per cent for the 0-company group, and 4.16 
per cent for the 14-company {);roup. 

Tlie rate of turnover of the investment was about four times during 
each year in all groups, with slight variations from year to year. 

The rate of return on the investment or the per cent of the net 
operating profit to the investment fluctuated closely in line with the 
amount of net operating profit per ton. The table shows that in all 
years except 1916 the net operating profit was at least sufficient to 
net a fairly high rate of return on the investment. In 1917 
the rate of return was considerably larger than in the other years. 
The average rate of return for the entire period covered was 
20.21 per cent for the seven years of the 3-company group, 18.77 
per cent for the five years of the 9-company group, and 18.52 per 
cent for the three years of the 14-company group, which indicates 
that as a whole the average profit was such as to yield a high rate of 
return on the investment. It must be remembered, moreover, that 
these figures represent the profits on an investment which includes 
borrowed capital and that the rates of return would be much greater 
if the earnings on capital stock and surplus only were given. 

The high rate of return realized by the nine-company group for 
1915 was due to large profits realized by several companies which 
had comparatively small investments. 

Section 5. Comparative results of Quaker Oats Co. with other com- 
panies. 

Cost and profit figures were obtained from the Quaker Oats Co., 
but they were not included in the groups in Tables 30 and 31 because 
(1) No comjjarable investment data for this company could be ob- 
tained, and (2) the operations of the Quaker Oats Co. were so large 
that if its figures were combined with those of the other companies 
a disproportionate weight would be given to the operating results 
of this company in the total. 

On account of the possibility of identification it was also thought 
undesirable to present the cost figures of the Quaker Oats Co. anony- 
mously and separately. 

In order to permit some comparison of the operations of this com- 
pany with those of the other mixed-feed companies, especially with 
reference to costs, selling price, and net operating profit during the 
period under examination. Table 32 has been prepared. This table 
presents the relative increases in costs, expenses, prices, and net 
operating profit per ton over 1915 for the Quaker Oats Co. and for 
nine companies combined: 



COSTS, PROFITS, INVESTMENTS, ETC. 



151 



Table 32. — Relative increases in the unit cost per ton oj producing and selling reudy- 
viixed feeds for nine companies and Jor the Quaker Oats Co., by years, 1916-1919, 
inclus^ive. 



9-coiii- 
pany 
group 



9-coin- 
pany 
group 



9-com- 
pany 
group, 



9-com- 
pany 
group 



9-com- 
pany 
group. 



Materials 

Sacks 

Labor 

Mill overhead 

Total manufacturing costs 

Manufacturing cost of sales 

General and administrative 

expenses , 

Selling expense , 

Commercial cost of sales 

Net sales 

Net operating profit 



The net operating profit of the Quaker Oats Co. for 1915 was 
somewhat higher than that for the nine-company group, which 
accounts largely for the variation of the relative per cent increases in 
profit as shown for each year as between the two. However, the trend 
of the two sets of figures was substantially identical except in 1919. 
In that year the average sales price for the Quaker Oats Co. increased 
considerably less than the commercial cost of sales, resulting in a 
decrease in the net operating profit from that of 1918, while for the 
nine-company grouo the net operating profits were larger in 1919 
than in 1917. 



Chapter VLl. 

COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE ANIMAL -FEEDS 
INDUSTRY. 

Section 1. Competition between factory and home-mixed feeds. 

Farmers independent of mixed feeds. — From a study of the 
data secured in the investigation it would appear that the conditions 
of the feedingstufi's industry are such as to give to the farmers and 
feeders of the country a position of considei'able economic independ- 
ence with respect to the ready-mixed feeds. Their position as actual 
and potential producers of feeds and tlie fact that the market gener- 
ally carries both the ready-mixed rations and a variety of the straight 
ingredients from which they may mix their own rations, afi'ord them 
substantial protection against the possibility of anj^ extended 
exploitation on the part of the proprietary feed mixers, should 
such exploitation be attempted either in the form of excessive prices 
or of offering rations of low feeding value. Generally speaking the 
farmers and feeders who use the ready-mixed rations do so not of 
economic necessity but because they prefer to buy such feeds rather 
than to mix their rations at home. Likewise with respect to the 
methods by which farmers and feeders may purchase their feeds it 
appears that while the great majority of them patronize the local 
retail dealers, they may, and to some extent do, secure their feeds 
independently of such dealers by making their purchases individually 
or collectively directly from producers or wholesalers. 

The greater part of the feeds that are consumed by live stock 
does not enter into commerce, but is fed on or near the farms where 
it is produced. Only a very small percentage of farmers or feeders 
of the country purchase all their feeds. 

The farmers and other users of feeds who must purchase all or a 
part of their requirements on the market buy them either in the form 
of a ready-mixed ration or in the form of straight unmixed feeds. 
Generally when the straight feeds are purchased they are mixed at 
home in such proportions as will serve the purpose for which they 
are to be used. 

Reasons for this independence. — Both the ready-mixed rations and 
the unmixed or straight feeds are generally available in the markets 
at the same time. For two reasons this situation is of economic 
importance to the feeders who buy commercial feeds. First, with 
feeds offered in the two forms, the farmer is generally free to choose 
between a ration of his own mixing and one mixed by the manu- 
facturers. Whether or not the great bulk of the ready-mixed rations 
represents the maximum of feeding values as compared with home 
mixtures, and whether or not their cost is less or greater than a home 
mixture of identical feeding value, purchasers of feeds are, generally 
speaking, not compelled to buy the ready-mixed feeds. Secondly, 
this economic position of the farmer tends to establish a competitive 
152 



COMPETITIVF. (.'ONIIITIONS. 153 

relation between the prices of the ready-mixed rations and those of the 
straight feeds. 

It has been shown that feeds are purchased either mixed or as 
straight unmixed products. A study of the situation shows that 
generally there are no distinct or arbitrary influences or circum- 
stances wliich compel the feeder to adopt one or the other of these 
methods of feeding. It was noted that while some feeders preferred 
the ready-mixed products, others in the same community purchased 
the unmixed or straight feeds and did their own mixing, both groups 
using the feeds for identical purposes. Moreover, it was found that 
there were a large number of feeders who at different times purchased 
then- feeds in botli forms according to local conditions. Frequently 
a shortage of labor on the farms influenced the selection of the ready- 
mixed feeds. Feeders interviewed who use both the ready-mixed 
and the sti'aight feeds report no consistent difference in the results 
secured from the two methods. 

Otlier feeders, it was found, who generally preferred to do their 
own mixing, aie at certain times of the year compelled to purchase the 
ready-mixed products, not being able to procure the particular con- 
centrates which they believe to be necessary ingredients in a ration. 
However, such conditions do not appear to have been very general 
or seriously to have prevented home mixing. 

Whatever the factors are that influence the feeder to buy the 
ready-mixed feeds, it is evident that as a general rule he selects his 
feed in this form because ho chooses to do so and not because the 
straight unmixed feeds are not available. While at times it is 
difficult to secure certain straight feeds, there are generally available 
a sufficient number of others of equal feeding value. Among the 
25 or more of the most commonly used concentrates it is usually 
possible for feeders to secure a sufficient variety to constitute a 
suitable mixture. 

Feed-nutrition experts in some of the agricultm-al colleges have 
from time to time sugo;ested to farmers a number of formulas for 
home mixing winch in theii- opinion would give the maximum feeding 
results at the minimum cost. Lists of the most commonly used con- 
centrates have also been published showing current market quotations 
and the proportions and cost of the dio;estible nutrients of each. 

Most of the by-products and grain feeds are produced in different 
sections of the country and are distributed by many different inter- 
ests. It is not possible that these could be entirely diverted to the 
manufacturers of mixed feeds or in other ways withheld from feeders, 
thereby rendering the latter dependent on the ready-mixed rations. 
Since there are so many different feedingstufl's on the market of sim- 
ilar chemical analysis and feedino; value, feeders may substitute one 
for another and thereby protect themselves against a scarcity of any 
of these feedingstufl's. 

Not only are farmers and other users of feedingstuffs by doing their 
own mixing enabled to operate independently, in large measure, of 
the proprietary feed mixers, but generally they have access to a great 
deal of information and advice funiishcd by State authorities on 
the question of home mixing. In practically every State both the 
feed-control officials and the feed-nutrition experts in the agricultural 
colleges disseminate a vast amornit of information on the proper mix- 



154 COMMERCIAL FEKDS. 

ing and balancing of home rations. Frequently feeding formulas are 
suggested to cover the needs of different classes of feeders. 

In many cases the State oflicials and scientific authorities recom- 
mend the use of home mixtures. Such advice is generally based on 
the theory that most farmers grow, or should grow, a sufficient quan- 
tity of roughages and need only to purchase tlie necessary concen- 
trates to maivc a balanced ration. Tmis, bj' home production of the 
roughages and by purchasing concentrates of high protein content, 
the feeders, it is claimed, shwuld be able to mix a well-balanced ration 
at a cost below the manufacturers' rations. The following is typical 
of such advice: 

Even if the "lialanred" mixed feeds offered by the dealer are composed of pure, 
sound feeds it is usually not profitable to buy them. Carbohydrates can be raised 
more cheaply on the corn-licit farms than any other place in the United States. 
What the corn-belt feeder lacks is protein, and when he buys any considerable amount 
of carbohj'drates as he does when buying a balanced mixed feed, he buys a nutrient 
of which he already has an aliundant supply in his farm feeds. Also he pays the 
freight both ways, the elevator man's profit, the commission men's profit, the manu- 
facturer's profit, and the dealer's profit. 

■So, under ordinary conditions, corn-belt feeders should buy only nitrogenous feeds, 
should insist on ha^dng a standard product, and should ask for the guaranteed analysis 
of the feed. 

Oftentimes there are different grades of the same feeds on the market. Thus one 
may purchase cottonseed meal containing 20 to 45 per cent of protein, or tankage 
containing 30 to CO per cent of prctein. Almost invariably it is more economical to 
purchase the best grades rather than the poorer ones, as it will not be profitable to 
pay freight on a let of cottonseed hulls or peat. 

In most cases it will pay the farmers to buy the standard feeding stuffs and mix his 
own rations, as ho usually can mix them as cheaply as the manufacturer, besides 
having the assurance of knowing exactly for what he is paying. (Sleeter Bull, Prin- 
ciples of Feeding Farm Animals, p. 226.) 

In addition to the efforts of practically all of the agricultural col- 
leges and experimental stations which are directed toward the 
education of feeders in the matter of home mixing, some of the coop- 
erative farm organizations advocate and aid home mixing. Several 
of the cooperative organizations in the East have mixed feed manu- 
factured for them, which they sell to their members. 

Reasons for using Keauy-mi.xed feeds. — vVmong the factors 
most frecjuently mentioned as influencing the selection of the ready- 
mixed feeds are: First, avoidance of the labor and trouble of calcu- 
lating and mixing the home rations; second, a saving of the labor 
involved in purchasing and handling small lots of several kinds of 
feeds as compared with a larger quantity of one feed; third, that 
generally a well-known brand of ready-mixed feed constitutes a better 
and more scientifically balanced ration than the average feeder has 
learned to mix at home; and fourth, that the feeds compounded by 
the manufacturers are better and more thoroughly mixed. Thus, 
many feeders turn to the use of the various ready-mixed products 
because they find them more convenient to handle and because they 
believe such mixtures produce satisfactory results. 

It is noted that in many of the communities visited by the Com- 
mission's agents, the smaller feeders were more generally inclined to 
use the ready-mixed rations than to attempt home mixing, believing 
that such rations could be handled more economicall3^ Such feeders 
rarely ever made a definite comparison of the costs involved in the 
two methods. It was also noted that many feeders continued to buy 
the ready-mixed feeds in communities where the State agricultm-al 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 155 

authorities had apparently demonstrated that such feeds could not 
be fed as economically as home mixtm-es of equal feeding value. 

There is an indication from information secured that there is an- 
other class of farmers who are using the ready-mixed rations without 
regard to comparative costs, because they do not know how to mix a 
well-balanced ration at home, nor have they availed themselves of 
the information with regard to home-mixing methods and formulas 
furnished by the State agricultural colleges and other sources. 

Many large feeders were encountered who use the ready-mixed 
feeds. Various reasons were assigned by them for this, the one most 
frequently heard being that these feeders could not trust their em- 
ployees to mix a ration properly. These mixed feeds had also 
proved satisfactory. 

Reasons for home mixing. — While some farmers, for reasons 
stated above, prefer to use the ready-mixed feeds, other farmers in 
the same communities who do their o\vti mixing generally give two 
reasons for so doing. First, they contend that they can purchase the 
concentrates and compound a satisfactory ration of the same chem- 
ical analysis; and second, generally they express a lack of confidence 
in the proprietary mixed feeds, of which the percentage of ingredients 
is not known. Tliis lack of confidence is based on the suspicion fre- 
ciuently expressed that many of the ready-mixed rations contain 
ingredients of very low feeding value. This constitutes one of the 
most prevalent objections to the use of the ready-mixed products. 
It also appears that much of this attitude could be overcome were 
such mixtures sold with open formulas so that the feeders could 
know the exact i)roportions of each of the ingredients. 

Section 2. Feeders' methods of purchasing feedc. 

Introductory. — Commercial feeds both in the form of the ready- 
mixed rations and straight unmixed products are usually purchased 
in three ways. A comparatively small number of feeders individ- 
ually purchase part or all of their supply direct from the manufac- 
turers or wholesalers. Another small proportion secure their feeds 
through some form of collective buying, while the great majority buy 
from the local retail feed dealers. 

Direct purchases. — In many of the farming communities there 
are a few feeders who pm'chase their feeds in carload lots directly 
from the manufacturers, millers, or other wholesale distributers. 
Representatives of this class of purchasers stated that by so doing 
they were able to secure their feeds more economically than from the 
local dealers. There are certain disadvantages, however, which tend 
to restrict tliis sort of buyin^ to the comparatively few feeders who 
practice it. Most of the feeders in the average farming community 
lack the storage facilities required to handle carload quantities, or do 
not require carload lots, and therefore find it most convenient to 
secure their feeds from the local dealer in such quantities and varieties 
as they may need. Direct purchases entail a certain amount of time 
and trouble in the matter of transportation. Shipments are fre- 
quently delayed for one reason or another, thus inconveniencing the 
feeder and interfering with his feeding operations. Another factor 
militating against direct purchasing is that many farmers can not 
and others prefer not to pay cash for their feeds, as is required when 



156 COMMKRCIAT. FEEDS. 

making direct purchases from manufacturers. Then, too, manu- 
facturers as a rule do not solicit such business, as it may bring them 
into disfavor with the retail dealer. 

Cooperative nunNc. — While at present only a small part of the 
commercial feeds used by feeders is purchased by them tnrough co- 
operative buying agencies, there are indications that such collective 
buying is increasing. This sort of purchasing is n^uch more prevalent 
in some farming communities than in others. In certain commu- 
nities practically the entire distribution of feeds is handled by coop- 
erative agencies. In most places, however, the dealers receive tne 
patronage of nearly all who purchase commercial feeds. 

The services performed by the regular feed dealers are in certain 
localities largely or partly taken over by cooperative buying organi- 
zations, which perfoi'm more or less the same services given by the 
dealers, as when the cooperatives operate feed stores with warehouse 
facilities and carry a variety of feeds for their members. In other 
localities cooperative buying is done in such a way as largely to dis- 
pense with such facilities, the participating members being required 
to secure their feed allotments directly from the cars upon arrival of 
shipments. 

Cooperative buying seems to have developed largely around the 
idea that feeders should be able to secure their supply of feeds more 
economically tlu-ough cooperative purchases than through the local 
dealers, the assumption being that some of the dealers were charging 
more than a reasonable margin for their services. In other cases 
cooperative bujnng has been stimulated because the local dealer 
failed to render the service required by the community, usually by 
not furnishing the kinds of feeds demanded. In still othei' instances 
cooperative organizations of farmers engaged in general lines of 
buying and selling, purchase feed for theh' members, regardless of 
the efficiency of the local dealers. 

The retail dealers. — The local retail feed dealer who handles 
the great bulk of the commercial feeds usually performs the following 
services: He provides storage facilities and carries a variety both of 
the ready-mixed rations and straight feeds ; he buys in large quantities 
and distributes in small lots and usually keeps informed as to 
changing market conditions, so as to take the utmost advantage of 
the market; he is sometimes provided with mixing machinery to mix 
such rations as his customers may desire; he extends credit to his 
customers and frequently gives advice to feeders regarding properly 
balanced rations. His functions are much like those of retail dealers 
who hantlle other staple lines of farm commodities, such as fertilizer 
or farm machineiy. It is not uncommon to find that commercial 
feeds are handled locally by merchants engaged in other lines of 
retailing, such as fuel, farm machinery, ancl lumber. 

Inasmuch as comparatively few feeders are in a position to secui'e 
their supply of feeds in carload lots directlv from the manufacturers, 
or care to do so, such services as are usually performed by the local 
feed dealers are essential to the interests of the feeders and if not 

Ferformed by the dealers must be rendered by some other agencies, 
n any case, certain well-defined services are required to meet the 
needs of the average farming community. 

In those cases where the retail feed dealer does not conduct his 
business in competition with cooperative buying organizations, he is 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 157 

confronted constantly with the possibility that such collective buying 
may develop in his field. Likewise the retail dealer also faces the 
actual or possible competition of individual feeders making their 
purchases directly from wholesalers. Regardless of the competition 
that may exist among themselves, the dealers are generally impelled 
to render the kind of services required by the feeders, and at not too 
great cost, in order to maintain their position against the actual and 
potential competition afforded by the two classes of direct purchasing 
mentioned above. 

The extent to which the feeders may, by direct buying, protect 
themselves against local feed dealers who exact excessive profits, or 
whose services are inefficient, depends somewhat on whether the 
channels of the feed trade are open to such direct buying. 

Such was not the case in New York State at one time, as is shown 
by the report of a joint legislative committee, known as the Wicks 
committee, which in 1916 investigated this and other agricultural 
conditions in that State. The report of the committee shows that at 
the time of that investigation the New York Retail Feed Dealers' 
Association, an organization of local feed dealers, was engaged in 
a boycotting campaign to obstruct, and did effectively obstruct, the 
channels of feed distribution in such a way as largely to prevent the 
retail distribution of feeds except through the regularly established 
local dealers. 

The evidence secured by the joint committee was turned over to 
the attorney general of the State of New York, whereupon the New 
York Retail Feed Dealers' Association voluntarily dissolved. (See 
Sec. 6.) 

One of the subjects of constant inquiry in the present investigation 
was the determination of whether or not there exist at the present 
time any collusion or concerted activities on the part of the retail 
and wholesale feed distributers tending to obstruct or prevent feeders 
fi'om securing their feeds (either the compounded rations or the 
straight ingredients) directly from the wholesalers. While no evi- 
dence was found indicating that practices along this line are now 
being followed, nevertheless it was noted that there exists among 
manufacturers and wholesale distributers of commercial feeds a strong 
tendency to discourage direct sales to feeders and to distribute their 
feeds through the retail dealers. Although practically all feed man- 
ufacturers interviewed stated that they would sell direct to feeders 
who were financially responsible, it is understood that certain of 
them will not under any circumstances sell directly to feeders in 
communities where such manufacturers are represented by local 
dealers. In many of the cases where manufacturers are called on 
to make direct sales in communities where they are represented by 
dealers, they protect such dealers by allowing them a commission, 
usually of from 25 cents to $1 per ton, on such direct sales. 

Section 3. Competition in the animal-feeds industry. 

The Commission's investigation of competitive conditions in the' 
manufacture of animal feeds included interviews with manufacturers, 
jobbers, dealers, and consumers; the examination of the files of asso- 
ciations and individual companies; and the examination of all avail- 
able secondary sources of information on the subject. 



158 COMMKRCIAL FKKnS. 

The followinij soctioTis deal with competitive cnn(]itions in the 
animal-feeds industry as exhibited in the activities of some of its 
associations wliieh are or were directly conected with the industry; 
as existinji; in coimection with certain products which are conlrolled 
by only a few companies and which are, therefore, practically monopo- 
lized and potentially subject to the influences which attend such 
conditions; with certain customs which are considered undesirable 
even by the trade itself; and with the subject of unfair practices. 

Section 4. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association. 

Organization, membersiiip, and purposes. — The most important 
association in the commercial feed industry is the American Feed 
Manufacturers' Association, with headquarters at Chicago. This 
association, which includes all related lines of business in its active 
and associate membership, was organized on March 26, 1900, prima- 
rily for the purpose of obtaining more uniform State laws regarding 
animal feeds. Its principal activities, however, have been in support 
of, or in opposition to, legislation affecting the interests of its members. 

Article II of its constitution issued September 12, 1917, sets forth 
its purposes as follows; 

To assi.'it in the enartment and cnfnrrement of uniform laws and regulations which 
in their operation shall deal justly with the rights of feedingstuffs manufarturers, 
dealers and consumers. 

By concert of action with each other and with administrative officers of State and 
Federal laws, either individually or in their organized capacity, [tnj endeavor to cor- 
rect any abuses, dishonest practices, or any e^^ls in any way pertaining to the feeding- 
stuffs industry. 

To foster and promote such relations and intimacies between its members as shall 
tend to firmer business relations in which all can stand together in efforts to improve 
and perfect a standard of business integrity which shall include honesty of representa- 
tion, carefulness of obligations, and prom]itncss of execution. 

In the spring of 1920 the membership of the association was com- 
posed of 197 companies, which included most of the large feed manu- 
facturers. 

Attitude toward price agreements. — ^The association has not, 
apparently, engaged in any considerable price discussion or price 
arrangements, although certain members have made tentative en'orts 
in this direction. At or immediately following meetings of the 
executive committee there have been " discussions." It is said that 
at these meetings frequent charges of selling at too low prices were 
made and met by countercharges of the same nature, or by admissions 
or denials, as the case might be. No minutes have been kept of the.sc 
discussions. They may nave tended to advance prices, but there is 
no method of determining how much efl'ect, if any. they had. 

Proposed price-fixing plan. — In the early part of 1919, how- 
ever, an effort was made by members of the association to organize 
a bureau of grain and feed statistics, a body which seems to have 
had price fixing as an object, although the organization agreement 
stipulated that "no part of the machiiKuy of this organization will 
be permitted to be used to fix prices for the sale of material," and 
"under no circumstances whatsoever shall information be collected 
or distributed respecting any price which any member intends or 
expects to ask." According to one informant who was present at 
some of the meetings, however, "the idea was to improve prices in a 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 159 

way that they figured they coiikl legitimately do." Apparently the 
organization was never completed. 

By-product manufacturers and their opponents. — In the 
American Feed Manufacturers' Association there are two factions, 
the bickerings of which have at times, indicated more or less lack of 
harmony among the membership. One faction is composed of man- 
ufacturers whose principal business is the production of food for 
human consumption and who carry on an animal-feed business 
merely in order to dispose of the by-products of the principal business. 

The other faction is composed of manufacturers who oppose the 
use of these by-products on the ground that they do not have enough 
feeding value.' Such manufacturers hold that they use no such 
'"roughages" and that the mi.xtures they produce are superior to the 
feeds produced by the by-product manufacturers. They have, there- 
fore, carried on an active propaganda against the products of the 
other class of manufacturers, and some have openly favored laws the 
enactment of which would recjuire manufacturers to state on their 
feed bags the percentages of so-called low-grade ingredients used in 
a mixed feed. Hence, for purely competitive reasons, considerable 
rivalry and disagreement have arisen at times between the two classes 
of manufacturers in the association. 

The St. Louis open-formula resolution. — One of the results of 
this situation was what is known as the St. Louis resolution, unani- 
mousl}' adopted at the convention of the American Feed Manufac- 
turers' Association, June 5-6, 1919. The resolution reads as follows: 

The American Feed Manufacturers' Association agrees that any form of efficient 
governmental factory inspection will be welcomed by all honest manufacturers. 

The association agrees that no honest feed manufacturer opposes the filing of for- 
mulas with State or National feed control officials, when required by law. 

The association agrees that if, in the judgment of Congress, the percentage of an 
ingredient or ingredients in mixed feeds should l)e stated on the tag or label, then 
such pro\'ision or provisions should require the statement, by percentage, of each and 
every ingredient in the mixture to the extent of the full 100 per cent, whether or 
not the feed contains ingredients of so-called low feeding value. Reasonaljle pro- 
vision in this event must be made for variation in analyses of constituent ingredients, 
which variations necessitate slight changes in percentages to maintain the guaranteed 
chemical analysis. 

Despite the lack of harmony between the two factions in the asso- 
ciation, they unanimously agreed on the above resolution. It was 
framed by a committee composed of six members, tliree of whom 
represented the by-product manufacturers and three who repre- 
sented their opponents. 

Almost immediately after the resolution had been passed much 
opposition to it arose among the members, the claim being made that 
if such a law were passed by Congress it coidd not be enforced because 
the percentage of the different ingredients in mixed feeds could not be 
determined accurately by feed-control officials. (See Chap. IV, sec. 
12.) It was also opposed by some manufacturers who did not wish 
to make public their formulas. 

In speaking of the matter to a representative of the Commission, 
one manufacturer said: 

It was agreed by all that it was as desirable to the feeder to know the percentage of the 
high-gi-ade materials as to know the percentage of the so-called low-grade materials. 
The committee realized that it was impossible to enforce a law which reciuired the 

> See Chap. IV. 



160 C;OMMKK('IAL I'EKDS. 

porcontages of all or a part of the ingredionta to bo statcid. 'I'he committee likewiae 
was in doubt as to whether or not such a law would be f'onstitutional. * * * The 
committee were opposed to such a law, but if we had to have it, because Congress 
thought so — if we had to state the percentage of any ingredient, then it was fair to 
all manufacturers, and of more practical value to the feeder, that all materials should 
be stated and that all manufacturers should be treated alike. 

This resolution was not adopted with the idea, nor was it intended to conv< v the 
idea, that we were fa\'oral)le to stating the percentages of all ingredients. We were 
not; and the association has always stood opposed to stating the percentages of all 
ingredients, or the percentage of any ingredient. Rut it was clear in our minds that 
there was a movement on which, in the final show-down, might result in a law being 
recommended by the committees in charge at Washington requiring the percentage 
of some of the ingredients; and the resolution was intended to forciljly put on record 
the thought that if we had to have a percentage or percentages of anything, then the 
percentages of all was tJie right thing to do. 

Apparently, then, the resolution was not passed in the belief that 
such a law would result, or that it could be made effective, nor was 
there even a general desire to have such a law. Yet the association 
made capital of it by giving the passage of the resolution much pub- 
licitJ^ 

Section 5. Other feed manufacturers' associations. 

Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association. — The controversy 
over low-grade feeds, discussed in Chapter IV, has restdted in the 
organization of certain independent associations by members of the 
American Feed Manufacturers' Association who felt tliat the public 
interest as well as their own interests woidd be served by discouraging 
the use of oat feed and other low-grade by-products. The first of 
these associations was the Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association, 
organized on May 9, 1917. Its activities were limited mainly to an 
advertising campaign intended to establish the "pilot wheel" as an 
emblem of mixed feeds of the best quality. 

The Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association. — In August, 
1918, the name of the Sweet Feed Manufacturers' Association was 
changed to the Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association. Stress was 
laid upon standardizing sweet feeds on a high level and upon the elimi- 
nation of low-grade by-product feeds. The feeds manufactured by 
members had to be passed by the association before the feed could bear 
the pilot wheel emblem. Apparently the standards were too severe, 
as out of 38 members only 15 secured the right to use the emblem on 
their horse and mule feeds. Fourteen members resigned and even- 
tually, in the early part of 1919, the association ceased to fimction. 

United Feed Manuf.vcturers of the United States. — Soon 
after the passing of the Pilot Wheel Manufacturers' Association, a 
new organization was effected under the title of the United Feed 
Manufacturers of the United States, this body holding, like its prede- 
cessors, that the American Feed Manufacturers' Association leaned 
too much to tlie interest of the by-product manufacturers. They 
maintained that they were competitively at a disadvantage under 
this domination. The raemliership inciutied only nine manufac- 
turers, most if not all of whom were also members of the American 
Feed Manufacturers' Association. Inasmuch as practically all of 
them have continued as members of the older organization, appar- 
ently they have decided tliat tliey can better accomplish their pur- 
poses by remaining in tlic older tissociation than on the outside. The 
United Feed Manufacturers' Association is, therefore, practically 
inactive. 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 161 

Section 6. Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants. 

This organization followed the New York State Retail Feed Dealers' 
Association, which on February 8, 1917, was dissolved as the result 
of an investigation hy the New York State Legislature, known as the 
Wicks investigation, in which it was disclosed that the New York 
State Retail Feed Dealers' Association, in opposing direct sales by 
feed manufacturers, had resorted to unfair trade practices, especially 
boycotting. 

The Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants was organized June 
22-23, 1917, at Binghamton, N. Y. Its purposes as stated by Sec- 
tion II of the constitution are: 

* * * A closer acquaintance and a free interchange of thought; the discussions 
of various questions of interest in the manufacture and distribution of feeding stuffs, 
flour and grain in all its various phases; to remedy such misunderstandings among 
members as may be injurious to their business; to foster and promote greater efficiency 
and economy among members; to cppose in every legal manner unjust governmental 
interference with legitimate business; to proAdde a convenient means whereby mem- 
bers may present their aims and desires and to cooperate with other similar organiza- 
tions which may be striving to accomplish similar purposes. 

The membership of the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants is 
largely composed of retailers, wholesalers, traveling men or salesmen 
connected with such concerns, and of local or county associations of 
feed merchants. The present organization began with about 75 
members, largely recruited from the membership of the old New 
York State association, but the number of memoers has increased 
until it was about 800 in 1920. Besides retail and wholesale com- 
panies and their representatives its membership includes the Sussex 
and Orange Counties (N. J.) Retail Feed Dealers' Association, with a 
membership of 50 ; the South Jersey Retail Feed Dealers' Association, 
with 15 members; and the Mutual Millers and Retail Feed Dealers 
Association (Pennsylvania) , with about 90 members. The Eastern 
Federation of Feed Merchants is an associate member of the Ameri- 
can Feed Manufacturers' Association. 

The association is quite active in its opposition to legislation which 
it believes to be detrimental to the interests of its members, but it 
seems to confine itseK to legitimate methods of opposition. 

Like other associations of retailers, the Eastern Federation of 
Feed Merchants is strongly opposed to direct selling to consumers 
by manufacturers and wholesalers, and it takes pains to prevent 
such a practice when it comes within its observation. Its officials 
maintain, and the results of this investigation seem to bear them out, 
that they do not in any way interfere with or make threats against 
offenders. They do present to the manufacturer the "educational 
argument" that it is not to the best interests of the individual town, 
the consumer, or the manufacturing concern itself to eliminate the 
retailer hj selling direct to the consumer. 

In addition to the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants there are 
numerous other smaller associations of retail feed dealers the activi- 
ties of which, however, are mainly local. 

Section 7. Quasi control of by-products. 

As already noted, some by-products used in mixed feeds are in 
large part produced or purchased by a few concerns. A quasi 
42976°— 21 11 



162 



COMMERCIAI. FEEDS. 



control is thus exercised over corn gluten feed, a by-product of the 
manufacture of cornstarch and glucose, by the comparatively few 
concerns which produce it; over dried beet pulp, by one concern 
which has contracts for purchasing a large part of the pulp: and 
over cane blackstrap molasses, produced by practically all cane 
sugar mills but imported from Cuoa and Porto Rico by a few com- 
panies. In no case, apparently, is the control of a nature to exclude 
competitors from the field if they feel that circumstances would 
justify their making an energetic effort to compete. 

Corn gluten feed. — The production of corn gluten feed in the 
United States is practically confined to 10 companies. The per- 
centages of total output produced by each of these companies are 
shown in the following table. The companies are not identified, 
except No. 10, which is the Corn Products Refining Co. 



Table 33.- 



-Percentage production of com gluten feed by the 10 principal -producing 
companies, 191S-1919, inclusive. 





Company. 






Percent of total. 








1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1910 


1 




2 
1 
1 
2 
5 
4 
3 
6 
9 


2 
I 
2 
2 
8 
4 
3 
7 
10 


2 
1 
2 
2 
9 
4 

«7 
10 


2 
1 
1 
2 

10 
5 
6 
7 

10 


1 
1 
1 
2 
9 
4 
8 
8 
10 


1 
1 
1 
2 
9 
4 
7 
7 
8 


1 


2.. 






3 


1 


4 


2 


5 




8 




7 




8 


9 


9.. -- 


in 




Total. 






34 
66 


39 
61 


37 
63 


44 
56 


44 
56 


40 
60 


37 


W 




G) 










100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 


im 









1 Lessthanone-half of I percent. 

The table shows the dominant position of the Corn Products 
Refining Co., its production considerably exceeding the total for the 
other nine companies in every year. Only two otlier concerns have 
produced as much as 10 per cent in any year. On the otlier hand, 
the percentage of the Corn Products Refining Co. during the period 
under consideration did not fall below 56 per cent and in 1919 was 
63 per cent. The tonnage of this company increased from 183,000 
tons in 1914 to 297,000 tons in 1918 and 280,000 tons in 1919.= 

Uniformity of prices. — Practically all of the concerns included in 
Table 33 are members of the American Manufacturers' Association 
of Products from Corn. There seems to be no connection, however, 
between this fact and the uniformity of the price of corn gluten feed. 
An examination of the files of the association and studies of the 
situation made in the offices of individual manufacturers by repre- 

2 In 1913 a proceeding under the antitrust acts was instituted bv the Government against the Corn Prod- 
ucts Refining Co., and a decision was rendered in favor of the Government by the District Court of the 
United States, Southern District of New York. The decree entered on Nov. 13, 1916, provided for a disso- 
lution of the combination. The Corn Products Refining Co. appealed to the United States Supreme 
Court, but before the matter was reached for argument the appellants abandoned their appeal. Both 
parties agreed to an amended final decree incorporating some of the provisions of the original one, which 
wasentered on Mar. 31, 1919. The dnal plan provided for the disposal by Jan. 1. 1921 , by the Com Products 
Refining Co. of certain of its plants, some of which manufacture corn gluten feed. 



COMPETITIVE COXDITIONS. 163 

sentatives of the Commission revealed nothing indicative of price 
fixing and otlicr objectionable activities on the part of the association 
or smaller groups of manufacturers. 

The various manufacturers of corn gluten feed franldy explain the 
situation as being the result of the dominant position which the Corn 
Products Refining Co. occupies in the industry, saying that they find 
it necessary to keep their prices in line with those of this leading 
concern, so much so that immediately upon receiving news of a 
change in the prices of the Corn Products Refining Co., each of the 
smaller concerns institutes a similar change in its prices. No evi- 
dence was found indicating that this company communicates its 
price changes to other manuf actm'ers ; on the contrary, the smaller 
concerns say that they receive intelligence of the changes only 
thi'ough brokers and jobbers to whom, of course, the Corn Products 
Refining Co. communicates the changes instituted. 

Speaking of the situation, E. W. Meyers, manager of the feed and 
oil department of the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Co., Clinton, 
Iowa, said to a representative of the Commission that the price 
made by the Corn Products Refining Co. determined the prices 
charged by his own concern, and that "the Corn Products Co. nolds 
the umbrella." 

So closely does the Piel Bros. Starch Co., Indianapolis, Ind., 
follow the prices of the Corn Products Refining Co. that when it 
was requested to furnish prices of corn gluten feed for a period of 
years it pointed out that if the Commission had secured such data 
from the Corn Products Refining Co. the compilations would answer 
for the Piel Bros. Starch Co. The prices of the two concerns were 
practically the same. The Piel company does not make its price on 
corn gluten feed as a result of cost studies, but simply follows the 
prices of the Corn Products Refining Co. 

Apparently the substantially identical prices of different manu- 
facturers of corn gluten feed are due not to any well-defined under- 
standing among the producers, but are the result of the dominating 
position which the Corn Products Refuiing Co. occupies in the 
industry. The manufacturers feel that then" safest plan is to follow 
the lead of the dominating concern. 

The prices of corn gluten feed tlii'oughout the country, regardless 
of the location of the manufacturer, are based on the Chicago price — 
that is, the price paid by a purchaser in Milwaukee, for example, 
for corn gluten feed purchased from the Clinton Corn Syrup Refin- 
ing Co. is not a given price plus the freight from Clinton, Iowa, to 
Milwaukee, but the price the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Go. or the 
Corn Products Refining Co. charges a Chicago purchaser plus the 
freight from Chicago to Milwaukee. 

A. H. Kersting, vice president and general manager of the Clinton 
Corn Syi'up Refining Co., explained the situation by saying that this 
price policy is of long standing and is followed in order to protect 
the buyer; that — 

To a\oid discrimination between buyers or users of our products, it is absolutely 
essential that we ha\-e a common basing point. In other words, a price f . o. b. Chicago, 
upon which the deli\ ered price to any point in the country is based. In other words, 
our price at Montgomery, Ala., or any point you might state — New York City, San 
Francisco — is based upon the Chicago price, plus the freight and such other chaiges 
as are assessed to all buyers alike. * * * Now, were we to follow a different plan. 



164 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

what would be the result? It would simply mean that a user of our products in a 
city like Clinton, where a plant happens t« be established, would be gettinf; its poods 
from us cheaper than a man in the same line would have to pay at I)ubu(|ue, Iowa, 
or San Francisco, or New York. * * * We have always felt that it was abscilutely 
essential for us to protect all buyers in all parts of the country, accurding to their geo- 
gi'aphical location. In other words, that they would not be called upon, by virtue of a 
disadvantageous location, to pay a higher price for their goods than people who 
might be more advantageously located. * * * We are obliged to do busi- 
ness in every part of the country in order to dispose of our product. Did wedo any- 
thing else, we might place ourselves in a position where a competitor would enter 
at times territory which might he called a natural territory — tributarv- to Clinton, 
reducing prices to a point where we could not live — and we would have no means of 
retaliating. In order best to con.serve the consumer, the industry has to hold itself 
in a position to serve all buyers in every part of the country, differing only in differ- 
ences of price by differentials in freight rates. Pid we do anything else, you can 
plainly see that we would be discriminating against certain classes of buyers. As a 
matter of fact, we would be cutting other manufacturers' jirices, and the amounts 
involved would be so infinitesimal that it would not cut any ice — it is so ridiculously 
small. 

If, by virtue of our location, we are able to get into certain points at a lower rate 
of freight and at a lower cost than our competitors, why should we relinquish that 



The use of the Chicago price of the Corn Products Refining Co. as 
a base price by other concerns is ilhistrated in the case of the Cham- 
pion Milling & Grain Co., Lyons, Iowa, a few miles from Clinton, 
Iowa, where the Clinton Corn Syrup Refining Co., a producer of corn 
gluten feed, is located. The Champion Milling & Grain Co. reports 
that whenever it buys from the Clinton concern, despite its prox- 
imity to Clinton, Iowa, it has to buy on an f. o. b. Chicago basis — - 
that is, it has to pay the Chicago price plus the freight from Chicago 
to Clinton. 

Another example is that of the Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Milwau- 
kee, Wis., which says that it pays $1.03 a ton more than Chicago 
concerns for its corn gluten feed, regardless of the source from which 
it is purchased. C. G. Rooks, vice president of this company, reports 
as follows on the situation: 

We can understand this when purchasing from the Com Products Refining Co., 
who ha\e to ship from Argo [near Chicago] and therefore have to pay a freight of $1 .03. 
But we don't understand why we should have to pay more than Chicago when pur- 
chasing corn gluten feed from Clinton or Cedar Rapids, inasmuch as the freight rate 
from either place to Milwaukee is the same a? the rate from either place to Chicago. 

Dried beet pulp. — In 1902 the Larrowe Milling Co., Detroit, 
Mich., contracted for the output of dried beet pulp from two com-, 
panies which were operating crude drying machines and began to 
develop a market for the dried pulp. Later it secured the patent 
rights to. a German steam drier and oegan the manufacture and sale 
of the machines in America. ^ Since that time the use of dried beet 
pulp as an animal feed has greatly increased, and at present there 
are' 30 beet-sugar companies in the United States and 1 in Canada 
operating a total of 50 factories that have driers. The Larrowe 
Alilling Co. has contracts with 24 of these factories for their output 
of dried pulp. Some of these contracts expire in the campaign^ of 
1920-21, others in the period 1922-1924. 

» There areatloast 10 other concerns in the tlnited States manufacturing beet pulp dliers. 
* The beet-sugar manufacturing season. 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 



165 



The quantity of dried beet pulp sold and used by the Larrowe 
Milling Co. by campaign years from 1913-14 through December 31, 
1919, IS given in the table below: 

Table 34. — Quantity of dried-beet pulp handled by the Larrowe Milling Co., by seasons, 
ldlS-14 to 1918-19, inclusive, and for part of the season 1919-W. 



Campaign year. 


Sold 
direct. 


Used. 


Total. 


Campaign year. 


Sold 
direct. 


Used. 


Total. 




Tons. 
78,480 
63,27ii 
94,272 
87,827 


Tons. 

8,207 
16,. 529 
21,609 
17,869 


Tons. 
86, 687 
79, 802 
1 1,1, 881 
105.696 


1917-18 


Tons. 
43, 158 
82,338 
28,318 


Tom. 
17,844 
30,52,5 

6,813 


Tons. 


1914-15. 


1918-19 . 


112,863 






1916-17. 











Figures for the total output of dried beet pulp in the United 
States and Canada are not available, but undoubtedly the tonnages 
handled l)y the Larrowe Milling Co. constitute a very large per cent 
of the total. 

The only other concerns contracting with factories for any ap- 
preciable quantities of dried beet pulp are Max Hottlet, broker, of 
Milwaukee, Wis., and the Ubiko Milling Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
The former has contracts with the Green Bay Sugar Co., Green Bay, 
Mich.; Chipoewa Sugar Co., Chippewa Falls, Wis.; United States 
Sugar Co., Madison, Wis.; and the Wisconsin Sugar Co., Menominee 
Falls, Wis., and the latter with two concerns — Mount Clemens 
Sugar Co., Mount Clemens, Mich., and the Rock County Sugar Co., 
Janesville, Wis. 

The extent to which the Larrowe Milling Co. controls the dried 
beet pulp output is illustrated by a statement made by a mixed-feed 
manufacturer to a representative of the Commission, as follows: 

A\'e have tried to buy it [dried lieet pulp] at times but always found it a close pro]ioai- 
tion. One or two interests seem to have a monopoly on the dried beet pulp in this 
country — Larrowe Milling t'o. and Max Hottlet, broker, in Milwaukee. * * * 
During the last two years we have sent letters to e\'ery producer of sugar beet pulp in 
(be country, asking if they could furnish dried beet pulp. Some replied saying to 
go to Larrowe; others said they were sold out; others that they would give us an oppor- 
tunity when the time was ripe. 

The reason why the Larrowe Milling Co. has been able to secure 
the hold upon the dried beet pulp production that it has is due to 
the active part it took in making this product commercially valual)le. 
Some companies were not willing to risk builcHng (h-iers, and in such 
cases the Larrowe Company contracted to buihl Ihem with its own 
ca])ital, taking its pay therefor in dried beet jiulp. Because of its 
pioneer work in reclaiming a waste product the Larrowe Millmg 
Co. was favored by the sugar companies, and the dominant position 
now enjoyed by it has resulted. 

Although the Larrowe Milling Co. does occupy a dominant position 
in respect to domestic dried beet pulp, nevertheless it is not without 
some competition, as is shown by the fact that in 1919 the Larrowe 
Milling Co. lost contracts for the dried pulp of two sugar companies 
on account of higher competitive bids. Imports of dried beet pulp 
from Em'ope have steadily increased since 1917 and this source may 
be used by competitors of the Larrowe Milling Co. (See Ch. Ill, 
sec. 6.) 



166 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

The fact that the Larrowc MiUing Co. does have considerable con- 
trol of the dried beet pulp supply has not provoked much complaint. 
The policy of tlie company seems to be to sell to regular dealers first, 
only one jobber being among its regular customeis. The company 
says that it checlcs up the disposition of the dried pulp made by the 
retailers to whom it sells, and if it finds that they are selling to 
jobbers, brokers, or mixed-feed manufacturers, the company warns 
them that they must discontinue such sales or no pulp will be sold 
to them. 

Here and there, while the field work on this investigation was going 
on, some complained that the price of dried beet pulp has been too 
high, due to a monopoly of the product. Others believed that it 
was merely a situation where a product had naturally fallen into the 
hands of people who were specialists and did not believe that the 
Larrowe concern had in any way misused its advantage. 

The LaiTowe Milling Co. maintains that it endeavois to be fair 
both to the sugar companies and to the consumer and holds that its 
price is lower than that of jobbers who sell dried beet pulp. In the 
cases examined this statement was borne out bj^ figures sunmitted. 

A letter under date of <Tanuary 3, 1920, from the Larrowe Milling 
Co. to a customer indicates the pt)licy which the company declares 
that it maintains in selling dried beet pulp. It reads in part as 
follows : 

Our policy, however, ha-s always been to maintain a unifciini jirife and i\(it to l)e 
tempted by any increased bids. We ha\e always felt that if dried pulp wa-; worth 
more than we were asking, we should charge the increased price tr everybody, and if 
it was not worth what we were asking, we should reduce the price to everybody, and 
it i.s not fair to sell to one person at $55, and ask another one $56, and another one $60. 
* * . * » » * « 

We very much appreciate your ha^•ing taken the trouble to secure bids for us at 
prices higher than we are now a-sking, but upon mature consideration we have decided 
that we will not depart from our usual policy, as we feel that if your customers are 
entitled to get any beet pulp at all, they are entitled to get it at the same price as 
anybody else, or at least ivith no greater addition to the price than a fair brokerage 
or commission to yourselves. 

Now, if you feel that you can trust us with the name of your customer who is to get 
this pulp, and if we find it is not a party who has already bought direct from us and 
has had his full allotment, we would l)o willing to sell you two or three cars, liut 
will sell it to you at the regular price, with the understanding that you will not add 
mere than $1 a ton to the price. If, on the other hand, the party had already had pulp 
either from us or from some other source and has had more than he is entitled to get, 
we l)elieve you will agree we wcnild be justified in asking him to be satisfied and let 
some one else get what they are entitled to. 

The basis for deciding the quantity of dried beet pulp to which 
their various customers were entitled was the quantity such cus- 
tomers had purchased in the past. A letter from the Larrowe 
Milhng Co. to the Commission dated March 1, 1921, states: 

If a dealer who had only purchased two cars in a section during past years in<|uired 
of us for thi-ee or four cars at one time, we naturally suspected that he did not want 
this for his usual normal retail business, but was trjdng to buy some beet pulp to sell 
to outside points, and in such cases we felt it only proper to decline to make the offer. 

According to this letter the Larrowe Milling Co. is no longer — 

making any allotment of beet pulp to various customers, but are selling any reputable 
dealer that iiuiuues. The supply at the present time is ample for all demands and 
there is no necessity for restriction. 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 167 

Cane blackstrap molasses. — The use of sweet feeds has in- 
creased very rapidly in the hist 10 or 15 years. This gain in popu- 
larity on the part of these feeds has been attended by a corresponding 
increase in the supply of cane blackstrap molasses, which is an 
essential material used in their manufacture. Ten to fifteen years 
ago the available supply of .blackstrap amounted to about 500,000 
tons annually, but has since increased to over 1,100,000 tons. This 
has been in the past used more largely in distilling alcohol than in 
the manufacture of animal feeds. However, in years when other 
materials for distillation can be bought for less than feed manufac- 
turers ai'e willing to pay for blackstrap, its use in sweet feeds 
increases. 

The importation of Cuban blackstrap has so far been in the hands 
of the alcohol manufacturers. Prior to 1915 the Cuba Distilling Co., 
a subsidiary of the United States Industrial Alcohol Co., practically 
dominated the business of importing Cuban blackstrap molasses. 
The United States Industrial Alcohol Co. was in its turn a subsidiary 
of the Distilling Co. of America. In 1915, however, the United States 
Industrial Alcohol Co.'s stock owned by the Distilling Co. of America 
was sold to Rockefeller interests. 

In March, 1919, the Distillers Securities Corporation, which 
controlled the Distilling Co. of America, changed its name to the 
U. S. Food Products Corporation, and announced its intention to 
begin the manufacture of various foods and feed products. In 
carrying out this purpose it acquired in the following August the 
entire capital stock of the Sugar Products Co., importers of molasses, 
and several other English and Canadian importmg companies. It 
at once began a campaign for a share in the Cuban import business. 
This campaign has apparently been attended with more or less 
bitterness oecause of the resistance offered by the Cuba Distilling Co. 
It appears, however, that the subsidiaries of the U. S. Food Products 
Corporation have succeeded in making contracts and acquiring 
facilities for transportation and storage in Cuba that will enable 
them to secure a part of the blackstrap available for exportation. 

Whether this increase in competition for the supplies of blackstrap 
obtained from Cuba will result in rendering larger supplies available 
for manufacturers of feeds in the United States, or in lower prices 
for such supplies, can not be foreseen. 

As a result of the increased demand for alcohol and the higher 
price of feed grains on account of the war, the price of blackstrap 
paid by the jobbers who sold to manufacturers of feed, more than 
doubletl from 1915 to 1918. In 1915 they had paid but little over 
6 cents a gallon, but in 1918 the price averaged over 15 cents. 
The following year, with the falling oft' in war demand, the average 
price was about 7 or 8 cents per gallon. 

This situation was entirely changed, however, in the early months 
of 1920. An extraordinary export demand for alcohol developed. 
The exports for January, 1920, are said to have been double those 
for any prior January. At the same time the demand for sweet 
feeds greatly increased. Coincident with the development of this 
increased demand occurred a railroad strike and other transporta- 
tion difficulties in Cuba. These conditions in connection with the 
heavy demand for sugar transportation because of the very high 



168 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

prices of sugar practicalljr halted for a time the transportation of 
molasses. Closely followmg the difficulties in land transportation 
came the loss of three molasses tank ships. 

The situation outlined in the preceding paragraph for a time made 
it practically impossible for the molasses joboers to fill orders on 
contracts made with the sweet-feed manufacturers. As a result 
many of these manufacturers were seriously inconvenienced and 
some made charges of unfair treatment on the part of the jobbers 
with whom they had contracts. The prevailing conviction on the 
part of the feed manufacturers, however, appears to be that the 
jobbers throughout the period filled requests for shipments on con- 
tracts as fast as it was possible for them to obtain supplies. The 
acute situation in molasses above referred to had practically dis- 
appeared by July, 1920. 

Section 8. Trade practices. 

In the mixed-feed industry there have grown up certain practices 
which are regarded by some manufacturers as undesirable and which 
have an important bearing upon competition. Chief among these 
are the long-time contract and the guaranty against decline. 

Long-time contracts. — Apparently the long-time contract is a 
result of competition, the seller, in an efi'ort to take a customer from 
a competitor or to prevent a competitor from taking a customer from 
him, off'ering the goods to be delivered at a given price at some time 
in the future, often 90 to 120 days, pa3Tnent being made at the time 
of delivery. Thus a customer is not only secured, but secured for 
some time. 

Among the manufacturers, generally, the long-time contract is not 
looked upon with favor. At the St. Louis convention of the Ameri- 
can Feed Manufacturers' Association, June 5-6, 1919, a resolution 
was adopted to the effect: 

That it is the opinion of the American Feed Manufacturers' Association that the 
practice of making contracts for mixed feeds for delivery for a period longer than fiO 
dayB from date of contract should be discontinued, and that any member of the Associ- 
ation securing information that any other member of the Association is making such 
contra<ts be requested to report such information to the executive committee and 
that said executive committee endeavor to prevail upon such manufacturers making 
such contra^'ta to discontinue such practices. 

Many members, however, did not conform to the resolution and 
imder date of December 17, 1919, the executive committee advised 
the secretary to notify all members that the committee would — 

offer no criticism of any manufacturer who feels compelled to book sales of mixed 
feed for shipment not to exceed 90 days from date of sale. 

This form of cf)ntract, however, is capable of reacting upon the 
seller, as is illustrated by the experience of the Corno Mills, St. Louis, 
Mo. In the past their customers had for a number of years taken 
only from 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their contracted tonnage. In 
1917, however, by the end of the first four months of the year, due 
to the rapidly advancing market, the purchasers had called for more 
than 68 per cent of the total tonnage contracted for. The Corno 
Mills then issued a statement to its customers, pointing out the facts 
and notifying them that the company could not supply the full ton- 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 169 

nage demanded by the contracts. One of the paragraphs of the 
announcement read as follows: 

Facts have shown that custom and iisage compel the seller to sell a large amount of 
tonnage in order to receive a reasonable quantity of specifications to operate his mill. 
We have abided by the law of custom and usage and the spirit of cur contract and will 
continue to do so. .Tust what percentage cf the tonnage contracted for we will be 
able to deliver, we are, of course, not yet in a position to say, but it will probably be 
in the neighborhood of 50 per cent of the total amount of tonnage contracted for, which, 
by comparison with the figures stated above, you will see is greatly in excess of any 
amount we have heretofore been called upon to deliver. 

GuAR.\NTY AG.\iNST PRICE DECLINE. — Guaranteeing prices against 
decline is practiced in one form or another by many feed manu- 
facturers. Some guarantee their prices to date of shipment, others 
for a definite period of time, such as for six months. Other manufac- 
turers adopt the policy of repricing orders in lieu of openly guaranteeing 
against decline. The price policies of some manufacturers are very 
elastic, and even where orders have been booked and shipments 
made the prices have been cut upon the request or the demand of 
the purchasers. 

It is alleged by some that the practice, in so far as the feed business 
is concerned, originated with the big cereal mills which in early days 
flooded the country with salesmen who would guarantee customers 
against decline; that they introduced the practice, as they could 
better afford to take the risk, since they were selling comparatively 
imimportant by-products of their mills. 

Despite the possibility of the market going against him, the seller, 
especially a large manufacturer who has a by-product which goes 
into mixed feeds, assumes this risk for several reasons. The buyer 
may be obliged to hold the product for some time before he entirely 
disposes of it. He desires to make a contract, therefore, which in- 
sures him against loss, in the event of the market going down in the 
meantime. Secondly, the demand for feeds is more or less seasonal, 
and in order to spread his business over the year and create a more 
nearly constant demand, the seller seeks to encourage buying out of 
season through the inducement of a price guaranty against decline. 
Furthermore, the manufacturers claim that the custom tends to in- 
sure continuous factory operation and enables the manufacturer to 
take advantage of the buyer's storage facilities where his own are 
limited, thus in a manner offsetting expense of the guaranty when 
prices decline. 

There are, on the other hand, objections to this practice, and, as 
is the case with long-time contracts, many of the feed manufacturers 
object to the guaranty against decline. The American Feed Manu- 
facturers' Association at its St. Louis convention June 6, 1919, passed 
a resolution opposing the guaranty against decline, as follows: 

That it is the opinion of the American Feed Manufactiu'ers' Association that the 
practice of selling mixed feeds on long-time contracts embodying a provision guaran- 
teeing price, thereby protecting purchaser against market decline, is incompatible 
with present-day merchandising standards; that members of this Association are urged 
to discontinue such practice-s; that any member of the Association securing information 
to the effect that any other member of the Association is making such contracts, be 
requested to report such information to the executive committee of the Association 
and that said executive committee endeavor to prevail upon such manufacturers 
making such contracts to discontinue such practices. 



170 COMMKIU'IAL FEEDS. 

The majority of manufacturers visited by representatives of the 
Commission did not hesitate to condemn the practice of guaranteeinf^ 
against dechne, although most of them resort to it. 

The views of a number of feed manufacturers on the subject are 
given in the following paragruphs. The statements do not purport 
to be exact quotations but give the substance of the views expressed 
as found in the reports of tlie field agents of the Commission. 

Speaking of guaranty against declme, H. L. McGeorge, secretary 
and sales manager of the Royal Feed & Milling Co., Memphis, Tenn.. 
said in substance: 

We condemn the price guaranty absolutely — have nothing in its favor to say — never 
do it except to hold a good customer. Guaranteeing is principally done liy manufac- 
turers of cereal? — oatmeal — who manufacture feeds as a side line to al)8orb their oat 
hulls. It is po.ssible to recoup the loss by raising the price. We usually add a dollar 
a ton to sales on which we make a price guaranty. Reducing the quality by using 
cheaper ingredients has been tried but competition has regulated this 

E. H. Waldrop, president of the Waldrop-Estes Grain Co.. Atlanta, 
Ga., disapproves of the practice: 

It is a ver)- poor practice for botli parties. It tempts the dealer to buy larger quan- 
tities than he otherwise would and aside from the speculative features, he stores the 
bought feeds, and they stand too long in storage and deteriorate in quality. 

Will A. Hall, sales manager of the International Sugar Feed Co., 
No. 2, Memphis, Tenn., expressed a similar view: 

We guarantee prices to meet competition, but we would not do this were it not to 
meet competition. It is ol)jeetional>le because it is unfair competition — it involves 
rel^ates and the controlling of markets. It controls markets through one agency of 
distrilnition. For example, suppose I had a customer in a town to whom I gave 
rebates, price reductions, until his competitors coiild not sell at a prolit on their prod- 
ucts — he would control that market. We guarantee our prices against decline in the 
market Ijecause our competitors do. The practice is prevalent with the big factors, 
the big operators, all of the big ones. It is done in the hope to gain the customer's 
order and good will. The manvifacturer is the loser by it. He can not recoup such 
losses. Recouping can't be done Ijy raising the general level of prices. 

H. G. Atwood, president of the American Milling Co., Peoria, 111., 
spoke unfavorably of the practice: 

I am absolutely opposed to guaranteeing against decline, because in selling a large 
tonnage guaranteed against decline, in order that the manufacturer may protect himself 
he will necessarily ha\e to buy his raw materials to cover his sales. There is no way 
of having his purchases of raw materials guaranteed; while in selling a large tonnage 
of manufactured feed, if prices should advance, he is required to fill all his sales; if 
prices are reduced to a consideraljle extent, his orders will either be canceled or it 
will be necessary to reprice them to the liasis of the market. For instance, if a manu- 
facturer guarantees against his own decline and the market goes down, the dealer 
will Iniy other brands of feed and refuse to take his original contracts. This will 
mean a hea\y loss to the manufacturer, and if he is at all unscrupulous, he will natur- 
ally reduce the quality of the feed, 

J. A. O'Halloran, general manager of the Champion Milling & 
Grain Co., Lyons, Iowa, opposed the guaranty against decline: 

I do not think guaranty against decline a good practice, because when you make a 
price, you undertake to co\er. Prices ought to be based as nearly as possil)le on raw 
materials. The market may dec^line so far that all profit is eaten up. Besides, you 
would be selling the .MtulT at a loss, hei'ause in the event that you cover at high prices 
for raw materials, that naturally would be the result. When you guarantee against 
decline, you are not uuikiuLC a ddinitc jirice. You are taking all the risk and the buyer 
is taking none. 

John B. Edgar, president and general manager of Edgar-Morgan 
Co., Memphis, Tenn., expressed the hope that the custom of guaran- 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 171 

teeing against decline would be abolished, also speaking of the custom 
as' follows: 

Guaranteeing prices means that you must give yourself a larger margin of profit in 
order to insure your own profits; you must cliarge more on all prices to insure the 
risk you take in guaranteeing, wliich means that the consumer has to pay more for 
goods. On an advancing market manufacturers will deliver a cheaper grade of goods 
because the buyer won't kick, knowing that he can sell, because the goods are in 
demand. To guarantee prices exaggerates, intensifies this evil. 

W. F. Lippert, vice president in charge of sales of the Chas. A. 
Kjause Milling Co., does not guarantee against decline and is opposed 
to the practice for the following reasons : 

We do not guarantee against decline. Perhaps we lose a lot of business by it, but 
we are willing to lose it. Guaranteeing against decUne works only one way and this 
is a liad rule. It works always in favor of the buyer, because if we Imy the raw mater- 
ials at the time of sale and the market goes down, we don't get any beneht in the 
decline of the raw material and we lose. If we defer buying the raw material at the 
time of sale and the price of the raw materials goes up, we don't get any benefit of an 
advanced price in our finished product and therefore we again lose. The only way 
a manufacturer can possibly come out e\en when guaranteeing against decline is not 
to reduce his own price regardless of changes in the market; or else ))e a very fortunate 
gambler; or work on an extraordinary margin in order to cover the increased risk. 
We do not regard guaranteeing against decline as fair competition. 

On the other hand, R. W. Chapin, of Chapm & Co., Chicago, 111., 
defends the practice: 

WTien I guarantee against decline, that is my best answer to price cutters. It is my 
only weapon against price cutting. 

Another thing, the only way to get people to buy in the summer time is to give them 
some assurance; otherwise we would have to shut down our plant and e\eryone would 
want feed in September and October and we should be al)le to run only a few months 
a year. Before we started to guarantee our prices, we had to get them so low in the 
spring that we lost large sums of money and some one had to pay for these losses later. 
Any device that will keep our plants going, even if we only break even, is useful to 
the community. I can give my employees employment and stabilize prices. 

The contract guaranteeing against decline and made on a long- 
time basis is also offered with the understanding that the purchaser 
may at any time cancel any portion of the purchase which he deems 
advisable, an inducement which obviously has an important bearing 
upon competition and attracts trade to the concern that can make 
the offer. Having thus the privilege of canceling as much of the 
contract or order as he wishes, the purchaser is quite likely to over- 
state his requirements and cancel the overplus before the expiration 
of the contract. The seller, knowing this, permits him to contract 
for any quantity he likes, in order to secure the business. 

On the whole, apparently the practice of guaranteeing against de- 
cline is one which the majority of manufacturers would be glad to 
abolish, but the competition of certain concerns, which are conven- 
iently situated, results in others also resorting to it. 

Overages. — A number of feed manufacturers engage in the prac- 
tice of charging "overages." A feed dealer who has the exclusive sale 
of a manufacturer's feeds in a given territory may agree that other 
dealers in his territory be allowed to handle the same feeds provided 
he receives a fee or commission on each ton sold to such dealers. In 
such cases the manufacturer bills the feed to the new dealers at an 
advance over the price charged the reojular dealer and remits to the 
latter the amount of this overage. This e.xtra charge, or overage, is 
frequently as high as $1 per ton and at times as much as $2 per ton. 



172 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

The purpose of the practice, it is alleged, is to protect the regiilar 
dealer, who is presumed to have built up a demand for the feed. It 
also serves to secure another outlet for the manufacturer's product. 

The new dealers rarely are aware of the fact that they pay this 
overage, which is remitted to their competitors. Manufacturers fol- 
lowing the practice take care to see that dealers who are charged 
overages do not receive the regular price lists, but receive instead 
quotations which include the overage. The question may be raised 
as to whether or not this is a price discrimination. The Commission 
has taken steps to determine whether it is in violation of section 2 of 
the Clayton Act or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

Premiums given with mixed feeds. — At least one mixed-feed 
manufacturer puts a coupon in each bag of his feeds. These coupons 
are exchanged by this company for various articles, such as milk 
testers, scales, chinaware, cooking utensils, etc. 

Section 9. Other practices. 

Misbranding, giving short weight, refilling branded ba^s with 
inferior feeds, and adulteration occasionally occur here and there, 
but not to such an extent that the cases which do arise can be said to 
pervade the industry or to be the result of combined efforts on the 
part of manufacturers, jobbers, or dealers. 

More or less resort is also had to the use of "alternate brands." 
That is, a manufacturer may put feeds made from the same formula 
upon the market under two or three different brand names, the pur- 

Eose being to win trade by appearing to give exclusive sales of a 
rand to a certain dealer. In cases where the identity of these 
brands is kept secret the practice may be undesirable if not pei-nicious, 
as a consumer finding that a given brand is not suitable for feeding to 
his stock may purchase exactly the same feed under a different name 
from the same or a different dealer and believe that 'he is getting a 
different feed. If the facts are cleai'ly known to both dealer and 
consumer the practice is not serious, as the dealer knows that he is 
selling the same feed under a different name from that under which a 
competitor is selling it; and the consumer is not misled into buying 
it in the belief that lie is purchasing a different feed. Unfortunately, 
the facts are not always made clear and the practice then becomes 
reprehensible. 

Section 10. Summary. 

As previousl}' pointed out, there is competition between the readj'- 
mixed and home-mixed feeds. If prices of the ready-mixed feeds 
become too hi^h as compared with the prices of straight feeds, farmers 
will tend to do tlieir own mixing to a greater extent than usual. 
This potential competition serves to keep the prices of reatiy-mixed 
and straight feeds in line with each other on the basis of their feed 
utility. The possibility of home mixing and the wide variety of 
commodities which may be substituted for any particular feed or 
ingredient thereof operate in no smdl degree to prevent unreasonable 
prices, and probably also prevent attempts on the part of producers 
of feedingstuffs to organize and combine to obtain price control. 

Because of tlie great variety of the products which are thus used 
both for home mixing and in ready-mixed feeds artificial control of 
the feedingstuffs market is probably much more difficult to accomplish 
than in the case of some commodities. While there are fairly good 



COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. 173 

substitutes for many commodities, there is perhaps no branch of 
commerce in which the substitution of various commodities, either in 
whole or in part, for others, can aflord equally satisfactory results. 
In the case of feedingstuffs it may often be true that the substitute 
proves equal or superior to a commodity ordinarily employed. 

Monopolistic control of the feedstuffs market from the standpoint 
of prices therefore would recfuire a hu^e organization with wide 
ramifications, because not alone one feeastufi' or class of feedstuffs 
must be controlled but also a great many others which might be 
substituted therefor. Any such organization would clearly be most 
difficult and probably impossible to effectuate. It also follows, in 
the absence of such complete control, that combinations of manu- 
facturers in particular lines are perhaps less harmful than in other 
industries because the possibility of the substitution of other in- 
gredients ^nd feeds for those controlled by the association or com- 
bination sets a practical limit to the extent to which prices can be 
raised by a combination of any single group of feed manufacturers. 

Three important by-products of other industries — corn gluten feed, 
dried beet pulp, and blackstrap molasses — which are of high value 
to the animal feed industry, are controlled by a few concerns. 

In the case of corn gluten feed, while the prices are practically the 
same or on the same basis for all manufacturers, the situation appar- 
ently is not one of prearrangement between the producers, but the 
result of one concern, the Corn Products Refining Co., dominating 
the market through producing more than 50 per cent of the output. 

Dried beet pulp is largely in the hands of one concern, the Larrowe 
Milling Co., but it does not produce the commodity, and while it has 
contracts for the great bulk of the output of the beet sugar factories 
other concerns are in the market and secure contracts in competition 
with the dominant company. 

In the case of blackstrap molasses, a few large companies import 
the bulk of the quantity that comes into the United States, but 
among these concerns there seems to be active competition. 



Chapter VIII. 
THE REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 

■ Section 1. State and Federal laws. 

The first law regulating the sale of feedingstuffs was enacted by 
Connecticut in 1895. Shortly thereafter other States began enacting 
such laws until it now appears that all except New Mexico hnvv 
passed statutes which regulate to a greater or less extent the niainuT 
m which feedingstuffs shall be sold or offered for sale within their 
respective States. In some of the States feed laws have only recently 
been enacted. Forty-one States have laws pertaining specifically to 
animal feeds. The other six, namely, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, 
Idaho, Montana, and Nevada, while not having such specific statutes, 
may regulate the sale of feedingstuffs under provision of their pure- 
food laws, which laws are patterned after the Federal Food and Drugs 
Act of 1906. Only a relatively small quantity of commercial feeds 
are distributed in these latter States. It can be said, therefore, that 
in the States where commercial feedingstuffs are used to any great 
extent specific statutes to regulate their sale have been enacted. 

Purpose of feed l.\ws. — While in most of the 41 States the 
feedingstuff laws vary in many of their provisions, the purposes for 
which such laws were adopted are generally the same. These .pur- 
poses are: 

(1) To protect the purchaser against adulterated and inferior 
feedingstuffs. 

(2) To give him information with respect to the composition of 
such feedingstuffs as are offered for sale. 

(3) To protect the honest manufacturer and distributor of meri- 
torious feeds against dishonest competition. 

Feed laws generally uniform in essential provisions. — 
The important provisions which are found in mt)st of the State feed 
laws by which it is sought to secure such protection are those rcMiuiring: 

(1) That every feedingstuff offered or exposed for sale witliin the 
State, except certain exempted commodities, such as the whole 
grains and hays, shall have first been registered by name, brand, or 
trade-mark. 

(2) That such registration shall show the guaranteed chemical 
composition of the commodity in percentages of protein, fat, and 
fiber, and the common names of the ingredients.' 

(3) That the container of, or the tag accompanying each feed, with 
certain exceptions, shall show plainly the net weight, name, brand, 
or trade-mark of the commodity, and also the name and address of 
the manufacturer or person responsible for placing it on the market. 
. (4) That such container or tag shall also show the minimum per 
cent of crude protein, the minimum per cent of crude fat, and the 
maximum per cent of crude fiber, and in some cases the minimum 
per cent of carbohydrates or nitrogen-free extract of each feeding- 

1 Some Stateis also require the guaranteed chemical analysis to include the total carbohydrates or the 
nitrogen-free extract. 

174 



REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 175 

stuflF, and also the specific name of each ingredient used in its manu- 
facture. 

(5) Not only must the purchaser be furnished with the above 
information, but such feed laws, furthermore, prescribe a system for 
inspecting, sampling, and analyzing feeds sold or offered for sale, by 
which it may be determined whether or not such feeds conform to 
their guaranteed composition. 

(6) It is also provided in most of these States that the results of 
such inspections and analyses shall from time to time be made public. 

This latter provision is obviously an important one, inasmuch as 
the names of the brands or commodities and the manufacturers of 
the same are given in connection with the published results of each 
analysis, thereby enabling purchasers better to distinguish between 
superior and inferior feedingstuffs and between reliable and unre- 
liable manufacturers. Such information in itself should react to the 
advantage of the honest manufacturer and to the disadvantage of 
those less reliable or honest. 

(7) Penalty provisions in most of the State feed laws have been 
provided for the prosecution of those found guilty of any violation 
of these statutes. 

Prohibition of cektjVIN ingredients. — While it may be assumed 
that the enforcement of the above provisions (requiring that the con- 
tainer or label of a certain feed shall show its percentage content of 
firotein, fat, and fiber, and in some cases carbohydrates or nitrogen- 
ree extract, and also the names of the different ingredients), should 
afford the purchasers considerable protection against adulterated or 
injurious feedingstuffs, the statutes of a number of the States provide 
additional protection in this respect by making it specifically a vio- 
lation of the law to offer for sale feedingstuffs containmg materials 
considered of little or no feeding value, or materials injurious to the 
health of animals. 

In order to limit, and in some instances to prevent, the sale of 
certain materials several States have laws which prohibit the use in 
feeds of certain specified ingredients. Thus, several States proliibit 
the use of rice hulls in feeds. A number of other States prohibit the 
use of certain specified low-grade feeds unless the percentages of such 
low-grade ingredients in the feed are specified or the percentage of 
each ingredient in the feed is stated on tags or labels. Other varia- 
tions in such provisions might be cited as, for example, those which 
limit the percentage of fiber in a feed containing certain specified 
low-grade ingredients to 9 per cent with a narrow tolerance. 

The feedingstuffs laws in a majority of the States do not, however, 
specifically prohibit the use of any of these or other similar low-grade 
materials, it being contended that such materials have a place in the 
economy of feeding and that the purchaser is given sufficient pro- 
tection when the presence of these ingredients is stated on the con- 
tainer or label of a given feed with the guaranteed percentages of 
protein, fat, fiber, and sometimes carboliydrates or nitrogen-free 
extract. 

Variations of State feed laws. — In addition to the specific 
provisions of the law, the feed-control officials, or the agencies to 
which they are responsible, promulgate rules and regulations deemed 
necessary to carry into effect the full intent and pm-pose of feeding- 
stuffs laws. These rules and regulations, as well as some of the 



17(5 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

definite provisions of the law, vary in many particulars in the different 
States. Such variations relate principally to the requirements for 
tagging, labeling, and registering brands, methods of furnishing 
inspection samples, and in other ways that prescribe the manner in 
which the law shall be administered. 

Manufacturers and others interested in feed distribution and regu- 
lation urge that more uniform provisions among the States would 
facilitate regulation and promote greater economy in the manufacture 
and sale of feedingstuffs. Manufacturers of feedingstuffs frequently 
ship their products into several States. In order to comply fully 
witn all the various registration, labeling, and other regulations 
governing the sale of such products in these States, they are fre- 
quently compelled to prepare and label their shipments in a different 
manner for different States. ' This obviously involves extra expense. 

Appucation of Federal Food and Drugs Act to feeds. — In 
addition to the feedingstuffs laws enacted in all of the principal com- 
mercial feed-consuming States, the Federal Food and Drugs Act 
applies to feeds for animals. With respect to animal feeds this act 
provides against misrepresentation of ingredients, of chemical con- 
stituents, of weight, and against the use of deleterious materials. 
Enforcement of the act is also provided for and is referred to below. 

Section 2. Administration of feed laws. 

The execution of feed laws is committed in the different States to 
various agencies previously created and administering other laws. In 
the majority of the States having feedingstuffs laws, their execution 
lies with the board or department of agriculture, or with some 
division of such board or department, such as the bureau of chemistry 
or the commissioner of dairies and foods. In many of the States 
these laws are administered by their agricultural experiment stations. 

While the feed laws are administered by various agencies in differ- 
ent States, and there are certain other variations in methods of exe- 
cution, it is noted that the States quite uniformly employ a staff of 
inspectors who in a manner prescribed by law or regulation collect 
samples of feeds sold or offered for sale. Such samples are forwarded 
to the State laboratories, where they are analyzed by chemists to 
determine their conformity to the guaranties under which they have 
been offered for sale. 

Federal inspection of feeds. — The Federal Food and Drugs Act 
is administered by the United States Bureau of Chemistry. The 
bureau, through its field inspectors, collects samples of feeds in 
various sections of the United States and sends them to its labora- 
tories, a number of which are located in the larger cities. These 
samples are then analyzed to determine whether or not they repre- 
sent feeds that have been misbranded or adulterated. If these 
inspections or analyses show that feeds are being sold in interstate 
commerce in violation of the food and drugs act, complaints are 
brought against the parties responsible and the accused parties are 
given a hearing under the criminal section of the act. The facts are 
passed on by the branch laboratory, the head of inspection district, 
the Bureau of Chemistry expert on feeds, and the chief or assistant 
chief of the Bureau of Chemistry or both. Many of the complaints 
result in prosecution. 



REGULATION OF THK FEEI^ INDUSTRY. 177 

CooPERATiox OF State AND FEDERAL INSPECTORS. — An important 
feature of the enforcement of the Federal Food and Drugs Act is the 
extent to which the state feed-control officials cooperate with those 
of the Federal Government in the detection of violations of this 
Federal law. This cooperation is frequently recjuired by State law. 
In many instances inspections of certain feeds are simultaneously 
made by the two agencies and identical samples examined by the 
State and Federal chemists, and subsecjuent cases may be prosecuted 
under both the State and Federal laws. The value of this coopera- 
tion is illustrated in the following statement from a recent report 
made by the feed-control officials of Indiana on the enforcement of 
the feed laws of that State : 

Tlie cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture ■whereby all the 
inspectors become otficial inspectors of feeding stuffs in Indiana under the Federal 
Food and Drugs Act through the appointment of the State chemist as Federal Inspector 
and Collaborating Chemist, has proven very valuable in the enforcement of the State 
law since it enables this department to prosecute the original shippers of interstate 
shipments directly and removes the necessity for prosecuting local dealers in cases 
where their only fault is lack of information other than the interstate shippers' guarantee. 

The Assoclation of Feed Control Officials. — Cooperation 
between State and Federal feed-control officials in regulating intra- 
state and interstate commerce in feedingstuffs and in promoting 
more uniformity of administrative and regulatory methods is facili- 
tated through the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United 
.States. This organization, composed of both State and Federal 
feed-conti'ol authorities, meets each year and discusses the various 
problems confronting the industry and recommends the adoption and 
observance of such procedure as will tend to benefit the whole 
industry and make regulation more uniform and effective. In these 
respects the public interest has undoubtedly been served through 
the activities of this association. 

Section 3. Results of feed-law enforcement. 

Introductory. — It is the purpose of this section to discuss the 
general character of the feedingstuffs that have been marketed in the 
United States during the past few years, and to indicate so far as is 
possible from available data the extent to which such feeds have con- 
tained substances tending to reduce or injm-iously affect their feeding 
value, and to show the tendency to misbrand feeds or in other ways 
to violate feed laws. The apparent need for, and the efficiency of, 
the regulatory laws that have been enacted are also discussed. 

State feed laws, as explained above, usually require that the results 
of such analyses of feedingstuff samples as have oeen made, shall be 
published from time to time so as to show a comparison of the per- 
centages of protein, fat, fiber, and sometimes carbohydrates or nitro- 
gen free extract, determined by the analysis of each sample, with its 
guaranteed percentages, and to give also tne names of the ingredient or 
ingredients identified, together with those certffied as being present. 
Not all States - have published the results of their analyses of feeds, 
nor do all of the States issuing such information publish fully or in 
the same form the complete results of such analyses. 

2 A notiible example is Illinois. 
42970°— 21 12 



178 COMMERCIAI. FEEDS. 

Most of the States, however, have issued in summary form the 
results of their analyses of feedingstufl's, sueh tests representing 
a wide range of inspections. Samples of practically all feeding- 
stuffs sold within these States have been examined and, in some 
cases, especially where deficiencies have been suspected, several 
samples have been analyzed. The scope of this service is indicated 
by tne fact that from 500 to 3,000 samples of feeds have been analj^zed 
annually in each of the most important feed-consuming States during 
the past few years, one State having examined from 5,000 to 8,000 
each year. 

It is the results of these State analyses that furnish apparently the 
most comprehensive indication available of the general character and 
quality oi the commercial feeds that have been placed upon the 
markets of the several States, and which show the nature and indicate 
the extent of such violations of feedingstuff laws as have occurred. 

Results of regulation in certain States. — Before giv'mg a 
general review, however, of these past and present aspects of the 
commercial feed industry, a more detailed summary of the results 
of feed regulation is provided in the following statements from 
annual reports of some of the State feed-control officials, and which 
may be regarded as more or less typical of the general situation 
reported by most of the States. 

Pennsylvania. — The first is from a 1919 Pennsylvania State 
report: 

It may be stated that the character of the feedingstuffs sold in the State during 
the year, as represented by the samples examined, was good and showed an imiirove- 
ment over the condition prevailing last year, (specially vdih rcsjiect to the correct- 
ness of the gi^iarantecs for protein, fat, and fiber. There were a large proportion of 
"overages" and a less number of samples representing shipments guaranteed with 
both minimum and maximum guarantees, which in ]ire\'iou8 years upon analysis 
failed to meet the higher guarantees, thus being incorrectly labeled and misleading. 
Of the total number received 974 samples were foimd to be labeled with the guar- 
anteed analysis, and of this number 31 were found to be deficient in protein and 100 
in fat. There is, however, considerable room for improvement in the case of the 
mixed feeds, which included 718 samples out of the total number analyzed. Of this 
number of mixed feeds there were 259, or 36 per cent, of the samples where variations 
from the compositions claimed were found upon microscopical examinations. These 
variations were not as a rule of a serious nature and consisted for the most part 
of the absence of one or more claimed ingredients, the presence of additional ingre- 
dients, the substitution of one by-product for another, the presence of small amounts 
of rice hulls in five samples and of peanut hulls in three other samples. In addition to 
these discrepancies in composition there were 139 samples which contained as 
ingredients either oat hulls, clipped oat by-i^roduct, oatmeal mill by-product, 
flax-plant refuse or cottonseed hulls, where the content of crude fiber was fotind 
upon analysis to materially exceed 10 per cent, the amount permitted in mixed 
feeds containing these ingredients. In a few cases excessive amounts of these low- 
grade feeding materials were used where the excess fiber was found to be from 5 
to 12 per cent above the amount permitted. As a restilt of these variations from the 
certified analyses and compositions it became necessary during the year to order 
prosecutions in the case of bf, per cent of the samples received where serious viola- 
tions of the law were found. 

South Carolina. — The results of the enforcement of the feed law 
in South Carolina arc shoMTi in a 1915 official report of that State, 
from which the following is taken: 

The enforcement of the commercial feedstuffs law has at last become so effective 
that South Carolina, instead of being a notorious dumping ground for inferior mixed 
feeds and fake oats, as this territory was a few years at;0, is now regarded generally 
through the country as being one of the best protected States in the Union. At 



REGULATION OF THE FEED INDIISTRY. 



179 



firsi the department was confronted %vith the difficulty of shippers of sucli products 
resident in other States hiding under the cloak of interstate commerce. Now the 
commissioner, under the Federal law, is the collaborating State official, clothed 
with Federal authority, and this also is true of all inspectors and chemists employed 
under the State law. 

It is not very often necessary to institute proceedings under the United States law, 
but when it is necessary, in order to cure a situation and put a stop to abuses, it is 
done ■ndthout hesitancy, as some manufacturers and shippers have found to their 
regret. 

The character of feeds of all kinds now is much higher than ever before and honest 
competition has been fully established. This condition has been most cordially 
welcomed bv high-cla.ss manufacturers and merchants alike. 

* " '* * * * * » 

During the year inspectors have \'isited 1,839 towns, made inspections of 10,431 
stores, drew 1,072 samples of concentrated commercial fi'edstuffs, 13 samples of 
corn, 27 samples of grits, 175 samples of corn meal, 23 samples of oats, and 76 samples 
of flour. 

Texas. — Some of the results of the Texas feed hiw were noted in a 
1917 bulletin of that State, as follows: 

( 1 ) It has jilaced the feedingstul'f trade on .such a basis that mixtures of corn chops, 
wheat bran, wheat shorts, cotton seed meal, and other products with corn liran, 
screening.*, sweepings, cottonseed hulls and such materials, are now sold tor what 
they really are and not as pure corn chops, wheat bran, cottonseed meal, etc. 

(2) It has equalized and promoted uniformity in the selling ])riee of feedingstuffs. 

(3) It has induced farmers and feeders to investigate the relative values of feeding- 
stuffs, and has thus increased the sale of feedingstuffs of known value. 

(4) It has prevented the sale of a number of worthle.ss feedingstuffs. 

(5) It has encouraged the manufacturers to maintain a high standard. 

(6) It has prevented the shipment into the State of inferior feedingstuffs l)arred 
from other States that have feedingstuffs laws. 

(7) It has prevented the sale of adulterated feeds as pure products. 

Mldiuiau. — A 1919 bulletin published by the Michigan Agricul- 
tural Experiment Station discusses the results of the analysis of feeds 
in that State as follows: 

In the following tables are given the results of analyses of 1,530 feeds, 22 of which 
are not sutiject to license. Of the 1,508 licensed feeds 97 (6.4 per cent) were below 
guaranty in jirotein, 72 (4.8 per cent) were deficient in crude fat, and 126 (8.4 per cent) 
contained an excess of crude filler. These figures show a very satisfactory reduction 
in the number of violations of the feedingstuffs law. There has lieen a steady decrease 
each year in the number of feeds that have failed to conform to guarajity as is shown 
by the following talile: 





Year ending July 1 — 




1916 


1917 


WIS 


1919 




Per cent. 
15 

11.5 
9.9 


Per cent. 
11 
g 
15.1 


Per cent. 
8.3 
7.5 
12.5 


Per cent. 















In making these computations the following allowances tor variations from guaranty 
\yere made: Protein, 1 per cent; fat, 0.5 per cent; and fiber, 1 per cent. 

Indiana. — The following statement, taken from a 1919 report of the 
Indiana feed-control oflicials,^ will give some idea of the extent of the 
work done in enforcing the feed law of that State: 

Since July 1, 1907, inspectors have secured 31,647 official samples in the State, 
29,687 of which have lieen analyzed chemically and microscopically, 1,731 micro- 
scopically only, and 229 were discarded. 



« Bulletin No. 22S, C. 



il FeedingstulTs, Purdue University, Indiana, p. 15 



ISO 



COM MKIU I AIj feeds. 



Tho followino; table gives in brief form the results obtained for each 
year in tho same State: 

Table Sf). — Summary of results of the inspection of feedingstuffs fti/ llie hutinna Feed 
Control Officials, in specified yean, 1907-1918. 



Number of samples secured 

N umhor of samples anal.v zed 

Tor pent up to guaranty 

Ter cent below Ruaranly in fat only.. , 
I'er cent below guaranty in criide 

protein only 

Per cent below guaranty "in both 

crude fat and crude protein 

Per cell I misbranded as to pre-^enee of 

inferior ingredients "• 



1907' 1911 1912 1913 1914 191.1 1916 1917 1918 



2,303 

2,035 
W 3 
It). 1 



h.o 

17.5 



2,903 
2,«96 
79.7 



3.10.'; 
2, 913 
S2.0 



3,877 
3, .535 
7.5.7 



3,0.58 
2,S93 
(iS.O 



3,252 
3,039 

82.8 



I July 1, 1907, to July 1, 1908. 



^ Includes samples e.xamined microscopically 



General character ok feedingstcffs. — The results of the ad- 
ministration of tlie feedingstuff laws as reported by tlie tiifferent 
States indicate tliat the great bulk of the feeds that have been placed 
upon the marlvets of these States during the past few years have been 
found to bo substantially equivalent to the guaranty under which 
they have been sold. A detailed study of the summaries of feed 
analyses issued by the several States shows that while a considerable 
proi)ortion of the samples analyzed revealed some degree of deficiency, 
sucli deficiencies for the most part did not materially reduce the 
feeding value of the particular commodities involved. The great 
majority of the deliciencies involved samples found below the mini- 
mum guaranty in either ju'otein or fat, or both, or above the maxi- 
mum guaranty in fiber. On the other hand, it was also noted that a 
much larger proportion of feed samples analyzed averaged sul)stan- 
tially higlier than their guaranty in protein and fat, and likewise 
below in fiber. 

A more definite indication of the general extent to which feeding- 
stuff samples comply with their guaranties in this respect is the aver- 
age of all pi'otein deficiencies and overages computed for five States, 
namely, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania 
for the year 1918. In these States, of the 6,858 samples antilyzed 
including both straight and mixed feed, 1,179, or 17.2 per cent, 
showed an average protein deficiency of 1.4 per cent, while 6,679 of 
these samples, or 82.8 per cent, showed an average of 2.1 per cent 
above their minimum guaranty in protein. In tbese same States 
11.6 per cent of tho samples were found to be deficient to tlie extent 
of 1 per cent or over in protein, and 88.4 per cent were found to bo 1 
per cent or more above their minimum guaranty in protein. 

A similar study was made of tho extent to which the fiber content 
e.xcecdod tho guaranty in representative tests in four of these States, 
Indiana not having reported such results for the year under consid- 
eration. A review of the analyses of 1,825 feed samples showed that 
063, or 36. o per cent of the total number tested, exceeded their maxi- 
mum fiber guaranty by an average of 1.9 per cent, and were thus 
deficient in this particular, and 1,162, or 63.7 per cent, showed an 
average of 2.5 per cent below their maximum guaranty in fiber. 



REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 181 

Straight and mixed feeds compared. — A similar test of the pro- 
tein deficiencies and overages was separately made for straight feeds 
and for mixed feeds. Such calculations showed no consistent dif- 
ference in the average percentages of deficiencies and overages be- 
tween the two classes. 

There appears to be no great difference between the straight and 
mixed feeds in the matter of the extent to which they have been 
misbranded or in other ways have varied from the guai-anties under 
which they have been sold. A number of the States, however, re- 
ported finding excessive amounts of cottonseed hulls in the cotton- 
seed meal sold in those States, resulting in this commodity showing 
an unusually high percentage of samples which were deficient. 

It was noted also that of the total of 244 judgments obtained 
against feed manufacturers by the United States Bureau of Chemistry 
from June 1, 1914, to December 31, 1919, on account of adulteration 
and misbranding of feedingstuffs, 137 of such judgments involved 
adulteration or misbranding of cottonseed meal. Most of these cases 
were on account of this feedingstuff being misbranded, the actual 
percentage of protein being found below, or the fiber content above, 
the guaranty. 

^'ariations as to guaranteed ingredients. — A further study of 
the published results of the various State analyses of feeds shows 
that there has been a persistent tendency among feed manufacturers 
to offer for sale compounds in which one or more ingredients, not 
designated on the label or tag, have been used in addition to, or as a 
substitute for, one or more of the ingredients certified as being 
present. 

Wliile these are technically cases of misbranding, it appears that 
in the majority of such instances the feeding value of the particular 
feed involved was not reduced thereby. The guaranteed percent- 
ages of protein, fat, and fiber were frecfuently maintained even 
though the analysis showed some variations in ingredients. The 
ingredient or ingredients not designated were freciuently equal in 
nutritive value to those for which they were substituted, as when 
hominy feed was substituted for corn feed meal. 

Effect of feed laws. — It appears from a study of the reports 
of the administration of the State feedingstuff laws, and from all 
other information found to be applicable, that when and wherever 
a feedingstuff law has been enactecl and enforced in a vState there has 
followed, presumably as a consequence, a substantial improvement 
in the quality of the feeds offered for sale in that State. Feed-control 
officials generally are in accord with this conclusion. Previously 
to or at the time of the enactment of a State law there was placed 
upon the markets of that State a much larger proportion of inferior, 
misbranded, or adulterated feedingstuffs than has since been de- 
tected. It may be said that in the States that are now enforcing 
such essential provisions of a feed law as were discussed above there 
are being found today comparatively few cases where feedingstuffs 
have been adulterated with substances considered deleterious or as 
having practically no nutritive value. In States where these laws 
are enforced such adulteration generally constitutes not over, and 
frequently less than, 1 per cent of all feed samples analyzed. 



182 f'OMnKlU'lAI. FKKDS. 

Section 4. Legislative activities of the American Feed Manufacturers' 
Association. 

Introductory. — As stated elsewhere, the American Feed Manu- 
facturers' Association was organized primarily to foster State and 
Federal legislation believed to bo proper and to oppose laws thought 
to be inimical to the interests of its members. 

Representatives of this association are usually found at State capi- 
tals, and also at Washington, whenever legislation affecting the feed 
industry is being considered. If the proposed bill is not in accord 
with the manufacturers' wishes, strenuous efforts to defeat it are 
made and a substitute bill to which the manufacturers subscribe is 
frequently offered. 

Kind of legislation favored by the association. — A feed law, 
known as the Ihiiform Feed Law, is indorsed by the association. 
This law is similar to numerous laws already passed by a number of 
States. It includes provisions for registration of brands and requires 
the statement of the ingredients and a guaranteed chemical analysis. 

It is reasonable to expect the manufacturers to support this or a 
similar law. It contains the provisions they profess to believe neces- 
sary for the protection of both purchasers and the industry. Further- 
more, it is highly desirable from the manufacturers' standpoint that 
the laws of the States be as uniform as possible. At the present time 
manufacturers must sell in accordance with the many (lifferent pro- 
visions of State laws. It is claimed by them that this adds to the 
cost of feeds to the purchaser. 

Kind of legislation opposed by the association. — In general 
it may be stated that any law differing markedly from the Uniform 
Feed Law is usually opposed by the association. Proposals to require 
the statement of the percentage of ingredients, factory inspection, 
the tag of distinctive color for feeds containing certain ingredients, 
and the statement of ingredients in order of their preponderance are 
opposed by this association.' 

It is undoubtedly a fact that the activities of the American Feed 
Manufacturer.s' Association have resulted in considerable benefit in 
so far as laws regulating the feed industry are concerned. It is also 
true that some proposed laws which would be detrimental to public 
interest have been defeated by their efforts. 

The activities of the association and of influential individual mem- 
bers in opposing or influencing feed legislation have at times been of 
doubtful propriety, to say the least. Thus a feed manufacturer had 
representatives oi his concern see a certain State feed-control olficial 
and "play up to his vanity somewhat and show him a good deal of 
attention, with a view to securing his cooperation in having the 
legislature at its next session change the existing law." This course 
was believed to be effective, as this feed-control official some years 
earlier while connected with another State had, according to this same 
manufacturer, "helped gi-eatly in adjusting tiie difficulty in its legis- 
lature, and I believe it was purely on personal grounds." In another 
instance this same manufacturer, at the time hearings were being 
held on the so-called Gore amendment, instructed one of his assist- 



* Certain members of the association do not oppose laws of this sort. In fact, a few have advocated them. 



REGULATION OF THE FEED INDUSTRY. 183 

ants to have the corrvpany's customers at certain towns wire the 
Member of Congress in whose district these towns were hicated pro- 
testing against the amendment. The manufacturer wrote that he 
had been advised that this Congressman "needs votes badly and pres- 
sure from these towns will be very influential with him just at this 
time. If you have anybody in any of these towns who can put it 
up strong you had better have them do it Perhaps you had better 
work the telephone." 

Somewhat similar activities have occurred in the various States, 
particularly in New York, where the association, as well as many 
mdividual manufactui'ers, have been particularly active on legislative 
matters. 



APPENDIXES. 



Appendix 1. 

EXPLANATION OF CHEMICAL TERMS. 

The following definitions and stiitements are extracted from Bul- 
letin 251 of the Texas Agricultural lilxperiment Station, published 
September, 1919. 

rrolein, being the constituent of food which forms flesh, muscle, hair, ligament, anil 
Qther portions of the animal body, is of great importance. It replaces the wear and 
tear of the animal tissue and furnishes material for additional flesh. Besides fur- 
nishing material for tissue, protein maybe burned in the body to produce heat or it 
may ser\e as a source of fat in ca.se of a deficiency in carbohydrates and fat accom- 
paiued by excess of protein. It is, ho%vever, a costly source of heat and fat. 

Viilur of prolnn. — Protein is the most e.xpensive portion of a feedingstuff, and 
feedingstuffs rich in protein usually sell for a higher price than feeding.Mtuffs low 
in protein. With a given feedingstuff, the more protein it contains the l)etter its 
finality, compared with other feedingstuffs of the same class. For example, cottoi;- 
seed meal containing 48 per cent protein is of better <|uality than cottonseed meal 
containing 45 per cent protein. A low protein content accompanied by a high content 
of crude fiber indicates tliat the cottonseed meal contains an excessive amount of hulls. 

The value of feedingstuffs of different kinds can not be compared on a protein basis 
alone. For example, a cottonseed meal containing 45 per cent of protein does not 
have five times the \sdue of corn chops containing 9 per cent protein. There are 
other constituents of botli feedingstuffs (fat and nitrogen-free extract), which are of 
value to the animal, and corn chops contain much more nitrogen-free extract tlian 
cottonseed meal. The digestibility of the constituents is also of importance. 

Fat (or ether extract) is composed mainly of fats and oils in the case of concentrated 
commercial feedingstuffs, but with fodders and hays it is often composed to a consider- 
able extent of waxes, coloring matter, and other substances. Fat is used in the animal 
body as a source of body fat and to furnish heat and energy. The animal ref)uire8 
heat to keep its body warm and energy to run the animal mechanism, or to do the 
outside Work. The beating of the heart, clie\rtng, movements of tlie intestines, and 
the involuntary muscular movements recjuire energy which is furnished by the oxida- 
tion of fats, carbohydrates, or protein. One pound of fat is ecjual to 2.25 pounds of 
carbohydrates. 

Value of fat. — Fat ranks next to protein in value as a fe(>ding constituent. The 
more protein and fat a given feedingstuff contains tlie better its (piality compared 
with otlier feedingstuffs of the same class. Cottonseed meal containing 55 per cent 
of protein and fat combined is of higher \'alue than cottonseed meal containing 49 
per cent of protein and fat combined, (^ottonaeed meal is indet'd often sold on the 
basis of its protein and fat content, as determined by chemical analysis. 

As witli protein alone, however, two feeds of different kinds can not be compared 
on the basis of their content of protein and fat, since other factors enter into con- 
sideration . 

Crn.de fiber is the proportion of the plant which resists the intense action of acids 
and alkalies. It consists mostly of tlie cell walls and Woody fiber of tlie plant, and 
is the most indigestible part of tlie feedingstuff. By means of fermentation in the 
intestines, crude fiber is digested to some exb^nt by animals which chew the cud. 
The operation, howe\'er, consumes so much energy that a large proportion of the 
\al\ie of tlie crude fiber is taken up by tlie process of iligestion. Hays and fodders 
and other roughage generally contain much crude fiber, but concentrated feeding- 
stuffs contain comparatively small (|uantities of it. 

Value of crude fiber. — Crude liber is the woody and less digestible portion of a feed- 
ingstuff. The more crude fiber a feedingstuff contains the poorer its cjuality com- 
pared witli other feedingstuffs oi tlie same cla.ss. Feeding materials of low commer- 
cial value and of low value to the animal, such as straw, cottonseed hulls, rice hulls, 



APPENDIXES. 185 

oat hulls, corncobs, etc., contain large quantities of crude fiber, and their addition 
to a concentrated feedingstuff increases its content of crude fiber. Thus, if the crude 
fiber in cottonseed meal exceeds certain limits, it indicates that the meal is adul- 
terated mtli cottonseed hulls. In a similar way, crude fiber in excess of a given 
maximum indicates corncobs or corn bran in corn chops; rice hulls in rice bran, 
and so on. The amount of crude fiber is a much more sensitive indication of the 
low quality or of adulteration than the protein and fat, since the adulterants generally 
contain large percentages of crude fiber. 

^'o repeat, the more crude fiber a feedingstuff contains the poorer its quality com- 
pared with other feedingatuffs of the same class. This also holds good in comparing 
feedingstuffs of different kinds, liut not entirely; we must also consider the protein 
and fat content of the two kinds of feedingstuffs. Tlius, wheat bran contains con- 
siderably more crude fiber than corn chops, l)ut has a higher value when protein is 
worth more than fat and nitrogen-free extract. 

Ash is the residue left when the plant is burned. It represents mostly the mineral 
jKirtion of the plant and the portion which comes from the soil, although a part of the 
ingredients withdra\xii from the soil are volatilized during combustion. Nitrogen 
particularly is dri\en out completely. Ash is valuable to the animal, inasmuch as 
it furnishes material for bone, and some constituents of it, particularly the phosphoric 
acid and sidphur, are essential constituents of the animal cell. 

Value of ash.- — Ash is necessarily present in feedingstuffs. An excessive amount 
indicates contamination with dirt, sand, or other mineral matter. Too little ash in 
the ration may give rise to disorders, especially in young animals. 

Nitrogen-free extract [N. F. E.] is composed of starch, sugar, dextrin, and other sub- 
stances of a similar nature. These substances are n^ostly carbohydrates; that is, they 
contain carbon and hydrogen and oxygen in proportion to form water. Crude fiber 
is also composed largely of carbohydrates. 

Value of nitroiien-free extract. — The nitrogen-fi'ee extract of most concentrated com- 
mercial feedingstuffs, such as corn chops, wheat bran, cottonseed meal, Kafir, etc, is 
composed largely of sugars and starches which are 'readily digested and have con- 
siderable value to the animal. 

The nitrogen-free extract of wheat skins, corn bran, com cobs, rice hulls, hays and 
straws, and similar feedingstuffs, is composed mostly of other substances than sugar 
and starch, and has a lower value to animals. The nitrogen-free extract of these 
two kinds of feedingstuffs, therefore, can not be compared directly. 

In general, we may say that the more protein, fat, and nitrogen-free extract and the 
less crude fiber and ash a given feed contains, compared with other feedingstuffs of 
the same kind, the better the quality. 

The same statement also holds in comparing feedingstuffs of different kinds, but not 
altogether, since in comiiaring feedingstuffs of different kinds we must also consider 
the digestibility and the productive value of the digested materials. 

Carbohydrates is a collective term applied to crude fiber and nitrogen-free extract. 



Appendix 2. 



DEFINITIONS OF FEEDINGSTUFFS. 

[Adopted by the Association of Feed Control Officials o( the I'nited States.] 

Meal is the clean, sound, groimd product of tlie entire grain, cereal, or seed which 
it purports to represent. 

Chop is a ground or chopped feed composed of one or more different cereals or 
by-products thereof. If it bears a name descriptive of the kind of cereals, it must 
bo made exclusively of the entire grains of those cereals. 

Alfalfa meal is the entire alfalfa hay ground, and does not contain an admixture 
of ground alfalfa straw or other foreign materials. 

Anim.IlL Products. 

Blood meal is ground dried blood. 

Cracklings are the residue after partially extracting the fats and oils from the 
animal tissues. If they bear a name descriptive of their kind, composition, or origin, 
they must correspond thereto. 

Digester tankage is the residue from animal tissues, exclusive of hoof and horn, 
specially prepared for feeding purjwses by tanking imder live steam, drying under 



186 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

hi,e:h heat, and suitaWo prindine:. If it ronfains mnre than 10 per cent of phosphoric 
arid ( P2 Of,) it must be dosigiiated digester meat and bone tankage. 

Meal scrap anil meal meal are the ground residues from animal tissues exclusive 
of hoof and horn. If they contain more than 10 per cent of phosphoric acid (P, Oj) 
they must be designated meat and bone scrap and meat and bone meal. If they boar 
a name deBcrijJtive of their kind, {om position, or origin, they must correspond thereto. 

BATiLEY PhOHUCT.S. 

Barley hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the barley grain. 

Barley feed is the entire by-product resulting from the manufacture of pearl barley 
from clean barley. 

Barley-mijed/eed is the entire offal from the millijig of barley flour from clean barley 
and is composed of barley hulls and barley middlings. 

Brewers' and Distillers' Products. 

Brewers' dried grains are the properly dried residue from cereals obtained in the 
manufacture of beer. 

Distillers' dried grains are the dried residue from cereals obtained in the manufacture 
of alcohol and distilled liquors. The pioduct shall bear the designation indicating 
the cereal predominating. 

Distillers' corn solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from corn, 
is a mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet grains. 

Distillers' corn and rye solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from 
corn and rye, is a mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet 
grains. 

Distillers' rye solubles, a by-product from the manufacture of alcohol from rye, is a 
mash liquor concentrated after the removal of the alcohol and wet grains. 

Malt sprouts are the sprouts of the barley grain . If the sprouts are derived from any 
other malted cereal, the source must be designated. 

Buckwheat Products. 

Buckwheat shorts or buckwheat middlings are that portion of the buckwheat grain 
immediately inside of the hull after separation from the flour. 

Corn Products. 

Com bran is the outer coating of the corn kernel. 

Com feed meal is the by-product olitainod in the manufacture of cracked corn, with 
or without aspii'ation products added to the sif tings, and is also the by-product obtained 
in the manufacture of table meal from the whole grain by the non-degerminating 
process. 

Corn germ meal is a product in the manufacture of starch, glucose, and other corn 
products, and is the ,germ layer from which part of the corn oil has been extracted. , 

Grits are the hard, flinty portions of Indian corn, without hulls and germs. 

Corn gluten meal is that Jiart of commercial shelled corn that remains after the 
separation of the larger part of the starch, the germ, and the bran by the processes 
employed in the manufacture of cornstarch and glucose. It may or may not contain 
corn solubles. 

Com gluten feed is that portion of commercial shelled corn that remains after tlie 
separation of the larger part of the starch and the germs by the processes employed in 
the manufacture of cornstarch and glucose. It may or may not contain corn solubles. 

IJominy feed, hominy meal, or hominy chop is the kiln-dried mixture of the mill-run 
bran coating, the mill-run germ, with or without a partial extraction of the oil and a 
part of the starchy portion of the white corn kernel obtained in the manufaciure of 
hominy, hominy grits, and corn meal by the degerminating process. 

Yellow horn in y feed, yellow hominy vual, or yellow horn iny chop is a kiln-dried mixture 
of the mill-run bran coating, the mill-run germ, mth or wathout a partial extraction 
of the oil and a part of the starchy portion of the jellow corn kernel obtained in the 
manufacture of yellow hominy grits and yellow corn meal by the degerminating 
process. 

Oil Cake. 

Oil cake is the residual cake obtained after extraction of part of the oil by crushing, 
cooldng and hydraulic pressure from seeds screened and cleaned of weed seeds and 
otlier foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. When used alone 



APPENDIXES. 187 

the term "oil cake" shall be understood to designate the product obtained from 
partially extracted, screened, and cleaned flaxseed. When used to cover any other 
product, the name of the seed from wliich it is obtained shall be prefixed to "oil-cake." 
Ground oil cake is the product obtained by grinding oil cake. When used alone, 
the term "ground oil cake" shall be understood to designate the product obtained 
from partially extracted, screened, and cleaned flaxseed. When used to cover any 
other product, the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to 
"ground oil cake." 

Cottonseed Products. 

Cottonseed meal is a product of the cottonseed only, composed principally of the 
kernel with such portion of the hull as is necessary in the manufacture of oil ; provided 
that nothing shall be recognized as cottonseed meal that does not conform to the fore- 
going definition and that does not contain at least 36 per cent of protein. 

Choice cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, perfectly 
sound and sweet in odor, yellow, free from excess of lint, and must contain at least 
41 per cent of protein. 

Prime cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, 
reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or reddish, free from excess of lint, 
and must contain at least 38. G per cent of protein. 

Gooil cottonseed meal must be finely ground, not necessarily bolted, of sweet odor, 
reasonably bright in color, and must contain at least 36 per cent of protein. 

('ottonseed feed is a mixture of cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, containing 
less than 36 per cent of protein. 

Cold pressed cottonseed is the product resulting from subjecting the whole unde- 
corticated cottonseed to the cold pressure process for the extraction of oil, and includes 
the entire cottonseed less the oil extracted. 

Ground cold pressed cottonseed is the ground product resulting from subjecting the 
whole undecorticated cottonseed to the cold pressure process for the extraction of 
oil, and includes the entire ground cottonseed less the oil extracted. 

Linseed and Flax Products. 

Linseed meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the oil from 
ground flaxseed screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by 
the most improved commercial processes, provided that the final product shall not 
contain over 6 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials and provided further 
that no portion of the stated 6 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials shall 
be deliberately added. 

Oil meal is the ground product obtained after the extraction of part. of the oil by 
crushing, cooking, and hydraulic pressure, or by crushing, heating, and the use of 
solvents from seeds, which have been screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other 
foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes, ^\^len used alone 
the term "oil meal' ' shall be understood to designate linseed meal as defined. When 
used to cover any other product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall 
be prefixed to the words "oil meal. '' 

Old process oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the 
oil by crushing, cooking, and hydrauKc pressure from seeds screened and cleaned 
of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. 
\\'hen used alone the term "old process oil meal" shall be understood to designate 
linseed meal as defined, made by the old process. When used to cover any other 
product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to "old 
process oil meal." 

New process oil meal is the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the 
oil by crushing, heating, and the use of solvents from seeds screened and cleaned 
of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most improved commercial processes. 
When used alone the term "new process oil meal" shall be understood to designate 
linseed meal as defined, made by the new process. When used to cover any other 
product the name of the seed from which it is obtained shall be prefixed to "new 
process oil meal." 
■ Flax plant by-product is that portion of the flax plant remaining after the separation 
of the seed, the bast fiber and a portion of the shives, and consists of flax shives, 
flax pods, broken and immature flax seeds, and the cortical tissues of the stem. 

Ground flaxseed or flaxseed meal is the product obtained by grinding flaxseed which 
has been screened and cleaned of weed seeds and other foreign materials by the most 
improved commercial processes, provided that the final product shall not contain 
over 4 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials, and provided further that 



188 COMMERf'IAL FEEDS. 

no portion of <ho stated 4 per cent of weed seeds and other foreign materials shall 
be deliberately added. 

Unscrceiud jlarsced nil feed is the ground product obtained after extraction of part 
of the oil from unscreenetl flaxseed by crushing, cooking, and hydraulic pressure, 
or by crushing, heating, and the use of solvents. When sold without grinding the 
unground product shall be designated as "unscreened flaxseed oil feed cake." 

IiKjredienIs of unscreened flaxseed oil feed. — Ground cake from partially extracted 
flaxseed and foreign seeds Cwheat, wild buckwheat, pigeon grass, wild mustard, 
etc.). 

Screenings oil feed m the ground product obtained after extraction of part of the 
oil by crushing, cooking, and hydraulic pressure, or by crushing, heating, and the 
use of solvents, from the smaller ini])erfect grains, weed seeds, and other foreign 
materials, having feeding value, separated in cleaning the grain. The name of the 
grain from which the screenings are separated shall be prefixed to "screenings oil 
feed." 

Oat Products. 

Oat groats are the kernels of the oat berry. 

Oat hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the oat grain. 

Oat middlings are the floury iiortions of the oat groat obtained in the milling of 
rolled oats. 

Oat shorts are the covering of the oatgrain lying immediately inside the hull, being a 
fuzzy material canying with it considerable portions of the fine floury part of the 
groat obtained in the milling of rolled oats. 

( 'lipped oat Inj-prodact is the resultant by-product obtained in the manufacture 
of clipped oats. It may contain light chaffy material broken from the ends of the 
hulls, empty hulls, light, immature oats and dust. It must not contain an excessive 
amount of oat hulls. 

Peanut Products. 

Peanut-oil cake is the residue after the extraction of part of the oil by pressure or 
solvents from peanut kernels. 

Peanut-oil meal is the ground residue after the extraction of part of the oil from 
peanut kernels. 

Unhulled peanut oil feed is the ground residue obtained after extraction of part of 
the oil from whole peanuts, and the ingredients shall be designated as peanut meal 
and hulls. 

Rice Products. 

Rice bran is the cuticle beneath the hull. 

Rice hulls are the outer chaffy coverings of the rice grain. 

Rice polish is the finely powdered material obtained in polishing the kernel. 

Rye Products. 

Rf/e middlings or ri/e feed consists of the products other than the flour obtained in 
the manufacture of the ordinary "100 per cent" rye flour from the rye grain which 
has been cleaned and scoured. 

Rye red dog flour consists of a mixture of low-grade flour, tine particles of bran and 
the fibrous offal from the "tail of the mill. " 

Vklvet Bean Product.h. 

Velvet-bean meal is ground velvet beans containing only an nnavnidablc trace of 
hulls or pods. 

Ground velvet bean and pod is the proiXacl derived by grinding velvet beans "in 
the pod." It contains no additional pods or other materials. 

Wheat Phodi'cts. 

Wheat bran is the coarse outer coating of the wheat kernel as separated from cleaned 
and scorned wheat in the usual process of commercial milUng. 

Standard middlings (red .shorts or brown shorts) consists mostly of the fine particles 
of bran, germ, and very little of the fibrous offal obtained from the "tail of the mill." 
This product must bo obtained in the usual commercial process of milling. 

Crag shorts (gray middlings or total shorts) consists of the fine particles of the outer 
bran, the inner or "bee-wing" bran, the germ, and the offal or fibrous material ob- 



APPENDIXES. 189 

tained from the "tail of the mill." This product must be obtained in the usual 
process of commercial milling. 

Fliiur midiUings shall consist of standard middlings and red dog flour combined, 
in the proportions obtained in the usual process of milling. 

White shorts or ichite middlinijs consists of a small portion of the fine bran particles 
and the germ and a large portion of the fibrous offal obtained from the "tail of the 
mill." This product must be obtained in the usual process of flour milling. 

lull dii;i j/'iiir consists of a mixture of low-grade flour, fine particles of bran, and the 
fibrous oh'al fi'om the "tail of the mill." 

Wheat inbed feed (mill run wheat feed) consists of pure wheat bran and the gray 
or total shorts or flour middlings, combined in the proportions obtained in the usual 
process of commercial millings. 

Wheat bran aiul standard ■nnddlinc/s consist of the two commodities as defined above, 
mixed in the porportions obtained in the usual process of commercial milling. 

dereeninj/s consists of the smaller imperfect grains, weed seeds, and other foreign 
materials, ha\ing feeding value, separated in cleaning the grain. 

V Scoarinys consists of such portions of the cuticle, brush, white caps, dust, smut, 
and other materials as are separated from the grain in the usual commercial process 
of scouring. 

(Note) If to any of the wheat or rye by-product feeds there should be added screen- 
ings or scourings, as above defined, either ground or unground, bolted or unbolted, 
such brand shall be so registered, labeled, and sold as clearly to indicate this fact. 
The word "screenings" or "scourings," as the case may be, shall appear as a part 
of the name or brand and shalUbe printed in the same size and face of type as the 
remainder of the brand name. When the word "screenings" appears it is not neces- 
sary to show also on the labeling the word "scourings." 

MlSCEI.LANEOU.S PRODUCTS. 

Dried beet pulp is the material obtained by drying the residue from sugar beets 
which have been cleaned and fi'eed from crowns, leaves, and sand, and Avhich have 
been extracted in the process of manufactiu-ing sugar. 

Coconut oil meal ("copra oil meal") is the ground residue from the extraction of 
part of the oil from the dried meat of the coconut. 

Ii'ori/ nut meal is groimd i\ory nuts. 

Pabn kernel oil meal is the ground residue from the extraction of part of the oil by 
pressure or solvents from the kernel of the fruit of Elaeis guinccnsis or Elaeis niala- 
nocorca. 

Yeast or vinegar dried grains are the properly dried residue from the mixture of 
cereals, malt, and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal) obtained in the manu- 
facture of yeast or vinegar, and consists of corn or corn and rye fiom which most of 
the starch has been extracted, together with malt added during the manufacturing 
process to change the starch to sugars, and malt sprouts (sometimes cottonseed meal) 
added during the manufacturing process to aid in filtering the residue from the wort 
and serve as a source of food supply for the yeast. 

TENTATIVE DEFINITIONS. 

41.1'i per rent protein cottonseed meal, choice (juality. must be finely ground, not 
necessarily bolted, perfectly sound, and sweet in odor; yellow, free from excess of 
lint, and by analysis must contain at least 41.12 per cent crude protein, equivalent 
to 8 per cent of ammonia.' 

Cottonseed meal not fulfilling the above requirements as to color, odor, or texture, 
shall be branded "Off quality." 

SS.fie per cent protein cottonseed, meal, prime quality, must be finely ground, not 
necee.sarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, yellow, not brown or 
reddish, fi"ee from excess of lint, and by analysis must contain at least 38.50 per cent 
crude protein, equivalent to 7} per cent of ammonia.' 

Cottonseed meal not fulfilling the above requirements as to color, odor, or texture, 
shall be branded "Oil quality." 

S6 per cent protein cotton-feed meal, good quality, must be finely ground, not neces- 
sarily bolted, of sweet odor, reasonably bright in color, and by analysis must contain 
at lea.st 3e per cent crude protein, equivalent to 7 per cent of ammonia.' 

Cottonseed meal not fulfilling the above requirements as to color, odor, oi* texture, 
shall be branded "Off quality." 



1 Adopted tentatively, final action to be taken at the next annual meeting. 



190 COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 

Fish meal shall bo the dried, ffround tUsues of fish made from imdecomposed fish, 
with or without the extraction of part of the oil.^ 

Fhh residue meal shall be the clean undecomposed residue from the manufacture 
of glue or other fishery products and to be from nonoily lish.^ 

Multose process corn gluten feed is the dried residue from degermed corn, after 
removal of starch in the manufacture of malt sirup.^ 

Ground barley is the entire product obtained by grinding clean, sound barley, con- 
taining not less than 90 per cent pure barley and not more than 10 per cent of other 
grains, weed seeds, and other foreign material and not more than (i per cent fiber: 
Provided, That no portion of this stated 10 per cent of other grains, weed seeds, or foreign 
material shall l)e deliberately added.'' 

Mixed feed burlci/ is the entire product ofitained by grinding country run barley 
containing not less than 75 per cent pure barley and not more than 25 per cent of 
other grains, weed seeds, and other foreign material: I'rorided. That no portion of this 
stated 1'5 per cent of other grains, weed seeds or foreign material shall be deliberately 
added. The ingredients must be stated as barley, other grains, weed seeds, and other 
foreign material.^ 

IHce bran is the pericarp or bran layer of the rice grain, with only such quantity 
of hull fragments as is una\oidable in the regular milling of rico.^ 

(■hopped alfalfa is the entire alfalfa hay, chopped, and not ground finely enough 
to become a meal. It must not contain an admixture of alfalfa straw or other foreign 
material.^ 

Ear com chops is corn and cob, chopped, without the husk, with not a greater pro- 
portion of cob than occurs in the ear corn in its natuml state.^ 

Head chops consists of the entire head of the grain sorghums, chopped, and should 
bear the name of the sorghuni from which it is made. This includes, among others, 
Icalir head chops, milo head chops, feterita head chops, and sorghum head chops.^ 

Ifead stems consists of the head of the gi-ain sorghums, from which the grain has been 
removed, and should bear the name of the sorghum from which it is made.^ 

3 Adopted tentatively, final action to be taken at the next annual meeting. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



Table 1. — Index numbers of wholesale prices oj groups of 10 straight feeds, 12 commercial 
mixed Jecds, Jarm products, and all commodilies, by months, January, 191S, to June, 

1920, inclusive.^ 



Farm 
products 
group. 



Farm 
products coramod- 
group. ities. 



Farm 
products 
group. 



Farm 
products 
group. 



Farm 
products 
group. 



Farm 
products 
group. 



ISS 



187 



176 



210 



218 



220 



196 



1 The index numbers are, respectively, averages of the relative prices of 10 straight feeds, 12 commercial 
mixed feeds, the farm products group, and all commodities (see pp. lo.'j, 100, and 108). The figures for 
farm products and all commodities are those published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Depart- 
ment of Labor. Tile index numbers for the two groups of feeds are imweighted: those of the Bureau of 
Labor are weighted, as explained on p. 106. 

191 



192 



COMMKRl^IAL KKEDS. 



Table \ .—Indexnumhersof wholesale prices of groups of 10 straight feeds, 12 commercial 
mixed feeds, farm products, and all commodities, by months, January, 191.i, to June, 
1920, inclusive — Continued. 





1919 


1920 


Month. 


10 
straight 
feeds. 


12 mixed 
feeds. 


Farm 
products 
group. 


AU 
commod- 
ities. 


10 
straight 
feeds. 


12 mbced 
feeds. 


Farm 
products 
group. 


All 
commod- 
ities. 




221 
210 
219 
230 
, 235 
233 
250 
268 
247 
2.30 
238 
247 


215 
204 
204 
213 
218 
221 
231 

as 

230 

218 
220 
225 


222 
218 
228 
235 
240 
231 
246 
243 
226 
230 
240 
244 


203 
197 
201 
203 
207 
207 
218 
226 
220 
223 
230 
238 


256 
254 
262 
267 
285 
280 


229 
229 
235 
244 
284 
285 


246 
2.37 
239 

244 
243 


248 




«9 




253 


April... 


265 


Mav 


272 




269 


































































Year 


236 


220 


234 


212 


2 268 


'244 


>243 


«259 







' Average, January-June. 



Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 
.1913, to June, 1920, inclusive} 



Month. 


Bran. 


StLimlard 
middlings. 


Mixed 
feed.2 


Flour 
middlings. 


Red 
dog. 


Rye 
middlings." 


1913. 


119. ?9 
ls..V> 
17. 1.-) 
16. :!.■> 

16. R'S 

17. m 
16.90 
19.94 
21.25 
19.90 
20.06 
20. 25 


519.66 
IS. 94 
17.25 
16.70 
17.00 
IS. 81 
1,S. SO 
21.25 
23.13 
22.35 
21.63 
20.70 




$22.50 
22.38 
21.81 
20.75 
19.63 
21.31 
21. 65 
23.25 
25. .SS 
24.90 
24.25 
23.00 


»24. 19 
24.00 
23.38 
22.80 
23.44 
24.25 
24.20 
2.5.69 
27.00 
28. 20 
2.5.00 
24.50 


































July 










































Year 


K.63 


19.68 




22.57 


24.55 









1914. 


21.17 
22.17 
23. 5S 
23. 67 
22. 0(1 
20.67 
IH. 17 
■n . .iO 
21.67 
19.67 
20. 33 
21.50 


21.17 
22.00 
22. .'iO 
23.67 
22.00 
21.83 
21. 00 
24.00 
23.00 
19.67 
20.33 
21.50 


122.67 
23.50 
24.33 
24. .S3 
24.00 
23. .50 
22.17 
25.00 
24.67 
22.67 
23.33 
24.50 


24.17 
25.00 
25.17 
25.67 
25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
27.50 
27.67 
25.33 
25.33 
26.50 


2.5. 42 
26.25 
26.42 
26.92 
26.25 
28.25 
28.25 
28.75 
29.92 
28.92 
28.68 
30.25 


$21.17 




22.00 




22.33 


April 


22. .S3 




22.00 




21.50 


July 


21.00 




23.50 




22.67 




19.33 




20.33 




21.50 






Year 


21.34 


21.89 


23.78 


2.5.61 


27.51 


21.88 






191.-I. 


22.83 
23.00 
21.17 
22.17 
20.33 
20.00 
20.33 
20.33 
18.33 
18.67 
18.33 
18.83 


22.83 
23.00 
21.17 
22.67 
23.33 
23.00 
24.83 
25.33 
20.33 
19.00 
18.33 
18.83 


25.83 
26.00 
24.17 
25.33 
24.33 
24.00 
25.83 
26.33 
22.33 
21.00 
20. .33 
20.83 


27.83 
28.00 
26.17 
27.33 
27.33 
27.33 
29.50 
29.33 
25.33 
23.50 
22.83 
2.3.33 


31.58 
31.25 
28.42 
29.58 
29.25 
30.25 
32.75 
32.58 
29.25 
2,5.75 
25.08 
25.58 


22. .S3 




2:i.0O 




21.17 


April .. 


23.17 




23. ,50 




23.67 


July 


25.50 




2.5.33 




20.33 




19.00 




18.33 




18.83 








20.36 


21.89 


23.88 


26.48 


29.28 


22.05 







' See text p. 113for sources of these Tigures and mi'lhod of computing averages. 
' Figures for 1913 not available in source from which other figures were derived. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



193 



Table 2. — Average prices of mill feeds, sacked, f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 
1913, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 



Month. 


Bran. 


Standard 
middlings. 


Mixed 
feed. 


Flour 
middlings. 


Red 
dog. 


Rye 
middlings. 


1916. 


$19.33 
20.00 
18.33 
18.50 
18.83 
18.50 
18.00 
20.33 
22.00 
24.00 
27.33 
26.67 


S19.33 
22.67 
20.33 
19.50 
20.17 
20.50 
20.00 
21.33 
23.00 
26.00 
30.33 
29.33 


S21.33 
23.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.33 
21.33 
21.00 
23.33 
25.00 
27.67 
32.33 
31.67 


$24.00 
26.00 
24.00 
24.00 
24.33 
24.33 
24.00 
26.33 
28.00 
30.67 
35. 33 
36.00 


$26.25 
28.00 
26.00 
26.33 
27.33 
27.33 
27.00 
29.33 
31.00 
33.67 
38.33 
41.67 


$19 33 














mSv 








July 












October 


26 00 














Year.. 


20.98 


22.71 


24.17 


27.25 


30.19 


22 61 






1917. • 


28.33 
31.67 
34.33 
37.67 
36.67 
28.33 
31.00 
35.33 
30.00 
31.00 
31.00 
40.00 


28.33 
31.67 
3.5.00 
38.67 
37. 67 
34.33 
39.33 
45.33 
34.33 
36.00 
36.00 
40.67 


33.33 
36.67 
38.00 
39.67 
39.33 
38.00 
41.33 
46.33 
36.33 
38.00 
38.00 
42.67 


36.67 
39.67 
41.00 
42.67 
45.00 
45.00 
48.33 
54.00 
46.33 
48.00 
48.00 
50.00 


43.67 
46.67 
48.00 
48.00 
48.00 
48.00 
62.33 
58.67 
56.00 
56.00 
56.00 
58.00 








March 




April.... 




May 








Julv 






























32.94 

32.43 
32.76 
32.91 
33.14 
29.84 
29.88 
24.20 
23.20 
28.90 
28.49 
27.81 
34.87 


36.44 


38.97 


45.39 


51.53 








1918. 


34.43 
34.76 
34.25 
35.14 
31.84 
31.88 
26.20 
31.20 
30.90 
30.49 
29.81 
38.37 


36.43 
36.76 
36.91 
37.14 
32.93 
31.13 
25.45 
30.45 
30.15 
29.74 
29.06 
40.50 


40.89 
41.18 
41.31 
41.49 
35.86 
31.23 
25.65 
30.56 
30.30 
29.93 
29.32 
40.63 


46.77 
47.03 
47.15 
47.33 
39.79 
31.35 
2.5.67 
30.62 
30.23 
29.86 
29.21 
43.08 


35.67 




March 




April 




May 


45.67 




July " 




























Year 


30.37 


32.44 


33.05 


34.85 


37.34 








1919. 


50.00 
40.33 
38.00 
38.00 
39.00 
34.67 
37.00 
41.00 
39.33 
36.33 
39.00 
41.33 


50.00 
40.33 
38.33 
40.33 
45.00 
42.67 
46.00 
53.00 
52.33 
45. 33 
44.00 
44.00 


55.00 
45. 33 
43.00 
45.00 
47.00 
47.67 
49.00 
55.00 
54.33 
61.00 
50.00 
48.33 


55.00 
45.33 
43.00 
45.00 
50.00 
50.67 
52.33 
69.00 
58.33 
55.07 
55.00 
53.33 


60.00 
53.33 
50.67 
52.00 
55.67 
56.67 
58.67 
65.00 
64.33 
63.00 
63.00 
60.33 






40.33 
38.33 
39.67 
40.00 
38.00 
43.33 
53.00 
52.33 
45.33 
44.00 
44.00 


March..;... 


April 


May ■ ■ 




Julv 
















39.50 


45.11 


49.22 


51.89 


58.56 


43.86 





'As pointed out in the te.\t, a very marked increase in prices took place Dec. 20, 1918, and additional 
advances were made before the end of the month. An average of the prices for the 1st, 10th, and 2Uth, 
therefore, does not correctly represent the price for this month. Accordingly, in computing the averages 
for December, 1918, the method was changed and the price on the 20th was given twice the weight of the 
prices on the 1st and 10th. This does not apply to the figures for rye middlings, the price of which did not 
mcreasewith the advance in wheat feeds. 



42976°— 21- 



-13 



194 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Table 2. — Average prices of mill feeds, sacked,f. o. b. Minneapolis, by months, January, 
1913, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 



^ Month. 


Bran. 


Standard 
middlings. 


Mixed 


Flour 
middlings. 


Red 
dog. 


middlings. 


1920. 

January 

February 

March..: 


»13.00 

43.00 
40.00 
49.33 
.52.t;7 
52.00 


J44.00 
47.33 
51.33 
53.67 
57.33 
57.00 


»48.00 
49.00 
52.00 
54.87 
58.33 
58.50 


$53.00 
54.00 
56.67 
58.33 
62.33 
63.00 


$.58. 67 
61.00 
62.67 
64.33 
67.33 
68.00 


$44.00 
46.00 
51.33 
53 67 


May. .. 


57 33 












47.67 


51.78 


53.42 


57.89 


63.67 


51 47 







' Average of prices for two dates only. 

Table 3. — Average pricesper ton of xvhite hominy feed, in biill.f. o. b. mill, Indianapolis, 
and for New Vork City and Boston freight-rate points, hij months, January, 1913, to 
June, 1920, inclusive. ' 



I'.l ^l 


1913 


1914 


1913 


1916 


Month. 


In- 
dian- 

apoli.s. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


January 

Fel)ruary 


$19.40 
IS. 70 


$22.85 
21.50 
19.75 
21.66 
22.50 
24.42 
23.75 
28.50 
29.30 
26.87 
26.25 
26.75 


$23. 57 
22. 57 
20.85 
21.98 
22.85 
23.57 
24.27 
27. 18 
29.90 
27.73 
27.15 
27.40 


523.80 
23.85 
24.50 
24.00 
25.00 
25.80 
25.50 
28.35 
27.30 
24.00 
23.05 
23.60 


$26.75 
26.62 
27.00 
27.25 
27.00 
27.66 
27.50 
29.66 
31.91 
29.12 
26.47 
26.62 


$27. .52 
27. .57 
27.53 
27.57 
27.57 
29.90 
28.40 
31.07 
31.43 
27.57 
27.18 
27.57 


$27.25 
27.15 
25.00 
2.5.00 
26.90 
26.10 
26.15 
28.25 
27.00 
24.00 
24.75 
25.00 


$27.35 
29.50 
30.28 
28.92 
30.25 
30.20 
29.10 
30. 30 
31.50 
28.14 
26.37 
26.60 


$30.00 
30.99 
28.64 
29.16 
30. 43 
30.23 
29.49 
31.18 
31.75 
28.41 
26.60 
28.26 


$25.00 
24.50 
24.25 
24.00 
24. .50 
24.25 
24.50 
27.00 
29.00 
32.50 
33.00 
35.85 


$26.86 
28. 30 
27.44 
27.00 
27.00 
27.25 
27.87 
30.87 
33.00 
32.80 
33.70 
39.15 


S29.06 
29.08 


AprU 

May 


19. 45 
20.30 


27.18 
27.2:i 




20.95 
20.95 
24.80 
27.80 
22.90 
23.10 
23.60 




July 


27.58 




31.88 


September 

October 

November 

December 


34.00 
34.41 
41.33 
41.40 


Year 


21.66 


24.51 


24.92 


24.90 


27.80 


28.41 


26.05 


29.06 


29.60 


27.53 


30.10 


31.45 




1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 


Month. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


In- 
dian- 
apolis. 


New 
York. 


Bos- 
ton. 


January 

February 

jtbrch 


$37.00 
38.00 
41.00 
48.85 
51.75 
50.00 
51.00 
54. 85 
56.00 
53. 00 
58. 65 
57.95 


$41.70 
41.50 
43.66 
48.25 
54.55 
55.66 
55.10 
62. M 
58.00 
53.80 
57.00 
53.16 


$41.22 
41.92 
43.89 
52.90 
55.90 
51.47 
52.77 

•r.B.oo 

66.57 
56.84 
53. 60 
3 60.00 


$58.50 
60.30 
63.55 
53.45 
47.40 
51.40 
57.50 
58.85 
56.00 
49.00 
48.50 


$53.50 
64.25 
65.75 
63.67 
61.25 
53. 50 
56.66 
65.00 
59.50 
57.66 
55.33 


$58.00 
60.59 
66.90 
57.20 
45.90 
48.43 
58.15 
.59. 32 
58.47 
54.70 
52.47 

•62.90 


$56.25 
5(1.10 
57.50 
62.35 
64.75 
65. 85 
72.50 
75.15 
61). (10 
49.50 
55.45 
58.90 


S63. 50 
37.16 
52.33 
63.00 
67. 33 
70.00 
75.00 
77. 33 
70. .SO 
56. 50 
56.50 
36.25 


$61.56 
50.21 
52.69 
58.15 
61. .54 
62.93 
74.10 
76.02 
66.45 
55.81 
58.97 
63.60 


$61.50 
59. 30 
63.40 
65.00 
70.00 
68.30 


$61.00 
63.33 
64.00 
65.00 
67.60 
73.33 


$63. 58 
63.14 


April 




m"::.:.: 




















September 

October 

November 

December 


































Year 


49.84 


52.07 


52.76 


55. 17 1 59. 71 


56.92 


60.69 


6:!. 77 


61.83 


»M.58 


•65.71 





' The figures in the first two columns were furnished by two leading manutactmers, operating plantsin 
the middle west , the first giving prices f. o. b. factory. In Jianano.i-, and the second prices on the New Yorli 
freight-rate basis. The figures in the third column were turmshcd by a leading jobber and are for Boston 
frei-iht-rate points. 

5 Interpolated. 

' Price for one date only. 

< .\verage, January-Jime. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



195 



Table 4. — Average prices per ton oj rice bran and rice polish. /. o. b. mills, by months, 
January, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive} 



EICE BRAN. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 


January 

February 

Marrh 

April 

May 


$17. 28 
16.18 
19.03 
15.79 
17.34 
16.12 
16.03 
15.60 
16.01 
13.90 
15.21 
15.95 


$14.90 
14.62 
15.31 

15.30 
15.53 
16.04 
17.00 
17. Ofi 
15.77 
15.33 
14. S7 
14.48 


$15. 76 
17.65 
21.21 
21. 05 
18.89 
15.00 
18.45 
14.71 
15.44 
14.28 
13.33 
14.66 


S14.98 
16.36 
16.42 
16.79 
17.01 
17.71 
15.00 
15.18 
17.07 
22.30 
23.01 
23.82 


$24.05 
24.12 
28.65 
38.26 
33.68 
42.00 


$39.74 
41.60 
40.85 
39.45 
39.45 
37.92 
36.00 
36.00 
36.02 
36.02 
36.19 
36.00 


$36.02 
36.03 
35.55 
37.64 
33.07 
35.22 
36.16 
43.97 
41.72 
33.71 
34.07 
33.29 


$30.80 
32.60 
30.50 
34.09 




July 

August 

September 




34.69 
34.46 
34.97 
35.45 
38.39 




















Year 


16.21 


15.30 


14.80 


17.17 


2 31.67 


36.36 


38.81 


3 30. 89 



RICE POLISH. 



January 

February 

Mareh 

April 

May 


$23.25 
22.19 
21.05 
18.77 
20.67 
18.68 
18.00 
22.00 
23.29 
23.52 
23. 35 
23.62 


$22. 22 
23.00 
21.69 
23.12 
22.77 
25.40 
25. IX) 
24.71 
25.14 
25.45 
25.33 
25.65 


$24. 83 
24.84 
24.90 
27.76 
25.39 
30.23 
27.90 
24.53 
24.30 
24.29 
22.96 
23.83 


$23.83 
23.72 
23.46 
23.95 
22.64 
24.92 
25.00 
23.08 
25.43 
27.66 
35.09 
29.17 


$30.26 
29.41 
34.13 
39.14 
40.48 
50.60 


$58. 34 
62.42 
64.21 
64.85 
54.87 
56.73 


$51. 60 
50.17 
52.09 
51.00 
51.71 
54.58 
61.41 
68.59 
64.19 
61.50 
58.60 
59.62 


$57.43 

57.74 
58.89 
58.67 






July 




50.00 
50.45 
60.94 
50.97 
57.39 


50.01 
50.116 
50.50 
51.18 
51.30 




Septemlier 


















Year 


21.77 


24.16 


24.44 


26.27 


2 40. 25 


2 56. 41 


69.50 


3 57.96 



1 Weighted avrragcs. See p. 119. 

2 Average, 11 months. 

3 Average, January-April. 

Table 5. — Average prices per ton of merchantable cottonseed hulls, j. o. h. mills, by 
months^ February, 1913, to April, 1920, inclusive.^ 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 






$7.33 
6.35 
6.94 
8.00 
S.04 
8.0O 
8.00 
8.00 
6.29 
4.31 
4.08 
5.06 


$6.02 
6.72 
6.79 
7.25 
7.06 
6.25 
5.75 
5.29 
4.25 
7.75 
8.96 

11.92 


$12.00 
11.58 
11.67 
13.50 
14.67 
13.25 
12.00 
10.67 
9.58 
13.00 
15.50 
15.25 


$15.96 
16.50 
16.50 
16.50 
16.50 
16.00 
15.54 
13.50 
12.50 
14.21 
17.63 
19.58 


$20.50 
21.50 
21.50 
21.50 
21.50 
21.50 
21.50 
21.50 
20.00 
20.00 
18.00 
14.50 


$11.50 
10.23 
7.88 
7.88 
7.88 
6.44 
5.96 
7.25 
6.67 
7.08 
9.21 
8.17 






$8.10 
7.81 
8.81 
8.94 
9.06 
9.42 
10.00 
10.00 
7.02 
7.13 
7.77 












May 








July 




























Year 


8.56 


6.70 


7.00 


12.72 


15.91 


20.29 


8.01 


! 11.02 



1 Simple averages of the means of low and high quotations on the 1st . 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th and 25th of each 
mouth from records of the Memphis Merchants' Exchange. 
3 Average, January- April. 



196 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Table 6. — At^erage prices of No. 1 alfalfa meal, carload lots, /. o. b. Colorado and Karuas 
mills, and average of quoted prices/or Kansas City rate points, by months, January, 191S, 
to June, 1920, inclusive.' 





1913 


1914 


1915 




1916 


Month. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 




Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo. Kan- 
rado. 1 sas. 


City 

rate 

points. 






117.50 
16.50 
15.50 
15.50 
14.50 
16.00 
17.00 
20.00 
21.00 
20.50 
20.00 
19.50 


$18.58 


>1A. 25 


$20.00 
19.00 
19. 00 
19.00 
17.00 
13.00 
15.00 
17.00 
16.50 
13.50 
16.00 
15.50 


'J19.50 

« 18. 33 

> 17. 75 

2 17. 75 

J17.00 

S17.00 

2 15.50 

2 16. 00 

2 16. 50 

18.33 

17.00 

16.83 


$13. .'*0 


SLI. .iO 


$16.83 
17.00 
16. nS 
17.00 
20.67 
18.83 
18.00 
16.67 
16.92 
17.17 
17.00 
17.00 


$13.20 $15.50 
13.41 16.00 
14.11 i 15.50 
13.00 ' 15.80 
13. 70 15. 00 
13. 25 14. 50 
13. 70 1 14. 25 
13. 40 : 17. 00 

15. 47 ; 17. 50 

16. 90 IS. 50 
19. 79 23. 50 
20. 58 23. 50 


$17.00 






17. 75 ] is! 00 
17 25 1 14.00 
17.42 ' 14.00 
16.00 ; 14.00 
15. 17 15. 90 
15.00 13.90 
17. 50 ! 13. 78 
18.83 1 14.00 

19. 67 1 13. 90 

20. 17 j 13. m 
19. 50 1= 13. 80 


12. 90 16. 00 


17.00 






14.40 
15.75 
15.20 
14.89 
'14.00 
13. S) 

n4.oo 

14.25 
13.00 
14.22 


16.50 
10. 50 
16.00 
15.50 
15.00 
15.50 
16.00 
16.50 
16.00 
16.00 


16.00 


April 




l.i. 83 


May 




17.00 






17.25 


July 


in. is 

IG.OO 
16.23 
16.90 
19.00 
14.00 


17.00 


August 

September 

October 

November. . .. 
December 


17.17 
17.92 
18.75 
22.83 
25.67 


Year'... 


'16.05 i 17.79 1 17.74 j 14.34 


17.04 


17. 29 1 14. 18 


15.92 


17.47 


15.04 1 17.19 


18.28 





1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 


Month. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 
City 
rate 
points. 


Mill prices. 


Kan- 
sas 




Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo- 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


Colo-, 
rado. 


Kan- 
sas. 


City 
rate 
points. 


January 

February 

March. 


S21. 36 
20.98 
20.00 
2S.41 
22.40 
23.92 
26. S3 
27.67 
26.50 
26.60 
31.16 
34.72 


$24.00 
23.50 
25.00 
28.00 
28.00 
26.00 
25.50 
2S.00 
28.60 
29.50 
34.50 
35.00 


$25. 25 $33. 13 
24.75 ! 34.33 

24. 00 j 32. 97 

25. 17 1 27. 50 
34. 33 1 26. 50 
35.33 1 23.50 
29. 33 i 25. 49 
31.60 1 31.21 
.30. 67 33. 97 
31. 17 33. 19 
35. 17 32. 29 
37. 00 29. 76 


$36.00 
3.1. 50 
35.50 
30.00 
26.50 
25.00 
25.00 
25.50 
35.50 
34.50 
34.50 
3.3. OO 


$37.50 
37.60 
37.60 
34.00 
30.50 
29.33 
29.17 
33.67 
38.50 
38.50 
37.50 
36.30 


$30 84 
2S. 69 
29.03 
35. 73 
30 23 
29.13 
29.69 
31.83 
29.81 
30.87 
31.99 
31.63 


$34.50 
33, (M 
38. IM) 
40.00 
32.50 
31.00 
33.00 
35.00 
34.00 
34.50 
35.00 
37.00 


$3.5. 50 
34.08 
3.5. 17 
41.33 
40.58 
37.58 
<33.33 
<35.50 
'35. 17 
<34.60 
<34.60 
<35.67 


$33.66 
34.74 
31.27 
35.61 
37.40 
33.65 


$37.00 
33.00 
.35.00 
35.50 
35.50 
36.00 


'40.50 
' 39. 17 
'35.67 




'36.17 


Mav.. 


'44.67 




S46.C0 






August 

September 













































Year"... 


25.87 


27.96 


30. 56 30 32 


31.37 


35.01 


30.79 


34.96 


.36.08 '34.69 


'35.33 


'4a3i 



1 See text, p. 12s , for sources and methods of computing average prices. 

' Nominal prices paid to country mills. 

' Interpolated. 

' Bids to arrive. 

6 Nominal quotations, limited olTcriugs. 

8 Simple averages of tne monthly averages. 

' Average, January-June. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



197 



Table 7. 



Average prices per ton of three dairy Jeeds, J. o. h. Boston rale points, by 
months, January, 1913, to June, 1920, inclusive. 



Month. 


1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 
























No. 1. No. 2. 


No. 3. ! No. 1. ! No. 2. 

I 1 


No. 3. 


No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. 3 


No.l. 


No. 2. 


No. 3. 




$30.50 $31.67 


'$33.00 $33.00 


$32.00 


$34.00 


832.33 


$32.50 


$33.25 


$33. 17 


$31.37 




30.50 31.50 




33.00 1 32.92 


31.67 


34.17 


33.00 


32.50 


33. .50 


33. .50 


31.70 




29. S3 1 30.25 


$27.50 


3.3.00 .32.92 


31.33 


33.33 


32.00 


31.00 


33.00 


33.00 


31.70 




2S.17 1 29.00 


28.50 


33.00 , 33.08 


32.00 


33.00 


32.33 


31.00 


32.83 


33.17 


31.70 


May 


2S.33 i 29.00 


29.50 


31.00 1 31.83 


.32.00 


32.67 


32.60 


31.67 


32.17 


32.83 


30.70 




28. 00 29. 00 


28.50 


31.42 ; 31.50 


31.20 


33.00 


32.25 


31.60 


32.33 


31.83 


30.80 


July 


28.83 29.00 


28.20 


31.17 31.50 


30.80 


32.67 


32. 25 


31.60 


32.67 


32. 17 


31.80 


August 


30.83 30.83 28.20 


33.00 ' 33.00 


30.00 


33.00 32.50 


31.20 


33.17 


33.17 


32.13 




33.00 32.67 29.13 


33.67 ,2.33.75 


30.00 


33.00 32.00 


31.00 


34.00 


34.03 


33.03 


October 


32.00 32.50 31.00 


32.83 :=32.00 


30.00 


32.00 !i32.00 


30.33 


35.83 


34. S3 


3.5.00 


November 


32.50 32.33 31.80 


33.17 31.25 


30.33 


32.50 i 31.75 


30.00 


40.50 


40.67 


3S.70 


December 


32.67 : 32.67 31.30 


33.75 ' 32.00 


30.50 


33.00 [ 32.00 


31.20 


43.00 


41.83 


39.80 


Year 


30.43 ] 30.87 <29.36 

1 


32.67 ' 32.40 


30.99 


33.03 ' 32.24 


31.. 30 


34.09 


34. 52 


33.20 


Month. 


1917 


191S j 1919 


1920 






' 1 1 










No. 1. No. 2. 


No. 3. 


No. 1. No. 2. , No. 3. 


No. 1. 1 No. 2. 


No. 3. 


No.l. 


No. 2. 


No. 3. 


January 


$43.08 1*42.25 


$40.80 


$60.00 S59.17 $56.00 


$69.33 


$67.00 


$64.17 


$79.50 


$76.67 




February 


44.67 ! 44.00 


43.50 


60.00 ; 59.50 56.33 


68.50 


65.00 


64.83 


SO 00 


75.33 






45.00 ! 2 45.00 


44.40 


62.00 61.67 , 60.00 


67.33 


64.33 


63. S3 


79.33 


74.50 




April 


48 67 151.00 


= 46.50 


66.00 61.17 • 60.00 


67.50 


65.67 


63.50 


78.50 


74.33 




52.67 i 51.50 




63.00 : 61.. 50 57.67 


68.17 


66.17 


64.50 


79.17 


75.83 




June 


51.00 50.67 


49.00 


64.00 60.33 57.07 


68.33 


66.00 


64.50 


80.00 


77.33 




July 


52.17 1 51.25 
56.67 1 58.67 
56.67 1 56.00 


51.82 
54.33 
53.00 


65.00 ! 61.33 5.8. S3 
65.00 64.00 1 59.33 


71.50 
180.75 
80.00 


69.50 
76.50 
77.33 


67.67 
77.80 
77.33 
















65.67 


64.00 










57.00 1 56.50 


53.00 


67.00 


64.83 02.50 


76.67 


73.17 


73.17 








November 


57.17, 57.17 


53.83 
57(1(1 


66.25 
67.17 


6.5.33 1 62.50 
66.00 1 63.17 


76.67 
79.50 


74.00 
74.33 


73.17 
73.33 


























Year 


52.06 ! 51.94 I' 49. 74 


64.26 


62.40 ii59.40 


72.85 


69.92 


68. 98 


3 79.42 


3 7.5. 06 





' Average of prices for two dates. 
» Price for one date only. 
» Average, January-Jiine. 
< Average, March- December, 
s Average for 11 months only. 

Table 8. — Average prices per ton 0/ eight dairyjeeds^j. o. h. factory, by months, January^ 
1915, to June, 1920, inclusive. 





20 to 24 per cent protein. 


14 to 17.5 per cent protein. 


Month. 


No.l, 
St. Louis. 


No. 3, 

No. 2, New 

Memphis. York 

State. 


No. 4, 
St. Louis. 


No. 5, 
Nebraska. 


No.O, 
Illinois. 


No. 7, 

Memphis. 


No. 8, 

New 
York 

State. 


1915. 


$27. 33 
27.83 
2S.00 
27. S3 
27.83 
26.00 
26.00 
26.67 
27.50 
27.83 
2S. 17 
2S. 83 


i 


$24. S3 

25. 33 
2.5.50 
25.33 
2.5. 33 
24.00 
24.00 
24.67 
25.00 
2.5. S3 
26.33 

26. S3 


826.00 
20.00 
27.00 
27.00 
27.00 
28.50 
2S.50 
27.50 
27.50 
26.50 
26.50 
27.17 


$22.67 
23.50 
23.50 
23.50 
23. 17 
22.50 
22.75 
23.17 
23.50 
23.50 
22.83 
23. 17 



























i 


May.. 




1 










July 


1 












25.25 
















22.64 








22.72 








23.24 










Year 


27.48 




25.25 


27.10 


23.15 















I Average for less than 12 months. 



198 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Table 8. — Average prices per tonof eight dairy feeds, f. o. h. factory, by months, January, 
1915, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 





20 to 24 per cent protein. 


14 to 17. 


5 per cent protein. 




Month. 


No.l. 
St. Louis. 


No. 2, 
Memphis. 


No. 3, 
New- 
York 

State. 


No. 4, 

St. Louis. 


No. 5, 
Nebraska. 


No. 6, 
IlUnois. 


No. 7, 
Memphis. 


No. 8, 
New 
York 

State. 


1916. 


?30.00 
31.00 
29.83 
29.50 
29.50 
28.83 
28.50 
29.50 
30.50 
31.83 
37.17 
39.50 




133.50 
33.50 
33.50 
33.42 
32.93 
33.00 
31.55 
32.33 
33.67 
35.13 
39.40 
41.50 


$27.83 
28.50 
27.83 
27. .50 
27.50 
26.83 
26.50 
27.50 
28.83 
30.00 
35.00 
37.50 


$27.67 
28.00 
28.00 
28.33 
28.50 
26.50 
26.50 
26.50 

■26.75 


$24.00 
24.83 
25.50 
24.00 
23.00 
25.50 
23.75 
24.00 
24.25 
25.00 
28.33 
30.67 


$26.82 
28.15 
29.10 
2S.13 
29.89 
2S. 62 
29.85 
2S.S4 
32.10 
32.76 
35.83 
36.73 


$24.41 






25.60 






21.59 


April 




24.68 


Mav 




24.50 




$28.20 


25.26 


July 


24. SO 




27.60 
28.67 
30.57 
32.46 
35.02 


24.28 




26.57 




27.27 






30.06 






32.12 










31.30 


» 30. 42 


34.45 


29.28 


1 27. 42 


2.'.. 24 


30.30 


26.03 






1917. 


39. .W 
39.50 
39.50 
•42.50 
48.67 
45.67 
46.83 
50.33 
50.50 
50.67 
53.83 
56.00 


30.83 
35.15 
39.50 
41.12 
45.08 
42.00 
44.56 
49.25 
43.03 
43.98 
49.31 
49.92 


41.87 
44.27 
46.47 
49.30 
54.30 
53.13 
51.30 
.56. 30 
54.50 
54.60 
56.73 
59.47 


37.50 
37.50 
37.50 
40.50 
44.67 
43.67 
45.17 
48.33 
48.50 
48.67 
52.00 
54.17 


38.00 
39.00 


32.00 
33.83 
3.5.17 
39.67 
41.00 
38.00 
38.67 
42.50 
42.50 
41. S3 
41.50 
42.50 


38.71 
38.34 
39.18 
43.83 
39.90 
42.27 
44.59 
53.33 
46.58 
47.88 
49.79 
51.56 


32.33 




32.85 




34.61 






38.80 


May. . 












July 




42.50 






44.97 






44.42 






45.17 






40.62 






40.89 










46.79 


41.14 


51.85 


44.85 




39.10 


43.91 


'37.69 








1918. 


58.83 
59.50 
59.83 
58.17 
53.33 
50.50 
53.83 
59.00 
62.00 
62.83 
63.00 
63.17 


50.00 
53.94 
57.04 
56.00 
54.44 

53. 27 
53.73 

54. 82 
57.56 
58.07 
62.85 
58.47 


60.80 
60.80 
61.80 


56.67 
57.00 
57.33 
55.17 
50.33 
47.50 
51.83 
56.00 
59.00 
> 59. 75 
<60.00 
60.00 


55.00 
54.00 
54.33 

58.67 
53.00 
51.33 
52.67 
54.33 
58.00 
57.50 
56.67 
56.00 


43.50 
43.67 
46.00 
45.33 
44.00 
43.25 
43.25 
44.25 
44.92 
46.25 
46.25 
45.58 


53.12 
55.80 
56.56 
56.64 
56.03 
57.05 
57.80 
50.19 
51.46 
52.78 
53. 9S 
63.14 


44.02 




45.30 


March.... 


42.76 


April 


53.50 


May... 


63.07 
62.13 
61.80 
62.70 
64.83 
65. 47 
65.80 
66.40 


51.23 




43.87 


July... 


43.72 




42.96 




43.57 


October 


42.15 




40.07 




41.41 








58.67 


55.85 


2 63.24 


55. !!8 


55.13 


44.69 


r>i. 19 


43.13 






1919. 


64.17 
62.67 
61.83 
64.00 
65.50 
65.50 
69.50 
76.83 
74.50 
71.00 
72.33 
72.33 


60.35 
60.00 
60.00 
68.00 
5S.25 
57.63 
63.08 
65.13 
66.63 
65.49 
64.92 
65.21 


66.70 
63.95 
62.20 
63.50 
64.57 
63.60 
69.30 
76.30 
75.80 
69.80 
72.47 
73.97 


59.83 
56.50 
56.17 
58.50 
59.67 
59.17 
61.17 
67.33 
65.50 
62.83 
•63.00 


56.33 
55.00 
56.00 
57.00 
57.00 
58.00 
59.67 
67.33 
61.33 
60.83 
61.67 
63.33 


46.58 
46.25 
46.25 
46.25 
46.58 
45.42 
44.08 
53.75 
53.75 
53.08 
52.08 
51.08 


5.3.66 
53.43 
51.51 
52.07 
52.49 
52.52 
53.70 
53.26 
59.40 
57.88 
58.01 
60.49 


42.43 




46.14 


March 


42.60 


April... 


47.00 


May 


49.34 




60.65 


July 


63.60 




57. .35 




66.60 




55.75 




55.02 




64.36 








Year. 


68. 35 


62.06 


68.51 


: f.O. 88 


59.46 


48.76 


54.50 


48.73 






1920. 


73.33 
73.17 
72.33 
71.83 
74.17 
75.00 


65.52 
63.49 
66.00 
73.25 
76.00 
76.00 


75.30 
70.60 
77.30 
75.47 
76.47 
77.30 




64.33 

63.67 
65.33 
68.00 
2 69.50 
70.00 


52.75 
52.75 
53.75 
55.75 
59.42 
62.42 


59.10 
60.44 
60.29 


55.41 






55.26 


March 




57.03 


April... 




60.58 


May... 






64.42 








66.42 












73.31 


70.04 


7«. 41 




66. SI 


.50.14 




59.85 











' Average of two dates only. 

3 ,\veragefor less than 12 months. 

' Price for one date only. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



199 



T.'VBLE 9. — Average prices per ton 0/ six brands 0/ stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, 
to June, 1920, inclusive} 





1913 


1914 


Month. 


No.l, 
Illi- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


No. 5, 
New 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 


No.l, 
Illi- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


No. 5, 
New 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 








$19.00 
18.50 
IS. 33 
1S.X3 


$21. 17 
21. 50 
21.33 
21.00 
21.00 
22.17 
22. 50 
25.00 
26.50 
25.83 
25.60 
25.17 


$25.84 
25.98 
24.48 
25.33 
25.32 
24.60 
24.80 
25.39 
26.43 
27.07 
26.59 
25.60 


$25.17 
24.83 
23.83 
23.50 
at. 50 
25.50 
26.25 
27.8.3 
30.00 






$19.83 
19.50 
19.33 
20.50 
21.00 
20.00 
18.50 
18.67 
19.00 
18.50 
18.33 


$24.00 
24.50 
24.83 
2.5. 00 
24.33 
24.83 
24.50 
27.17 
29.50 
25.67 
24.50 
24.83 


$26.57 
26.46 
25.95 


$28.83 
























MM 










Mav 






19.00 
19.00 
19.00 
19.83 
22.00 
22.00 
21.00 
19.50 






26.35 ' 28.67 














July 






$25.00 
25.00 

27.00 




25.75 i 28.67 








25.04 1 30.92 








26. 13 1 32. 33 








29.42 j 28.66 
28.67 28.00 
29.00 28.00 


27.35 1 29.83 








25.63 2S.50 






















Year . 


1 


19.67 


23.22 


25.58 


26.54 '<26.83 


] 19.26 


25.31 


26.27 I 29.25 




1 






1915 


1916 


Month. 


No.l, 
IIU- 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


No. 5, 
Now 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 


No 1, 
lUi- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


leans. '»"■ 


January 

Februarv 

March. 


$28.00 
28.00 
28.00 
27.00 
27.00 
2S.0O 
28.00 
28.00 
28.00 
28.00 
28.00 
28.00 


2$24.00 
24.67 
2.5.00 
25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
26.00 
26.00 
26.00 
26.33 


$17. S3 
17. 50 
17.67 
18.83 
19.00 
19.00 
19.00 
18.83 
19.33 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 


$25.44 
26.65 
26.50 
26.70 
27.36 
27.24 
26.85 
28.00 
26.64 
24.15 
23.64 
23.92 


$26. 57 
25.58 
26.98 
26.38 
26.54 
26.77 
26.08 
26.23 
25.61 
26.39 
26.29 
25.42 


$29.75 
31.33 
29.83 
30.08 
31.50 
31.08 
31.50 
33.00 
31.83 
29.58 
28. 08 
29.25 


$28.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
30.00 
32.00 
36.00 
38.00 


$27. 17 
28.50 
28.50 
28.50 
28.50 
2S.50 
28.83 
29.00 
29.67 
30.67 
33.50 
34.50 


$20.33 
22.67 
22.00 
22.33 
22.50 
22.50 
22. .50 
22.50 
22.83 
23.17 
25.33 
26.00 


325. 05 
25.66 
2.5.29 
25.29 
25.47 
24.52 
25.63 
26.49 

S28. 76 
28.69 
33.32 
34.64 


1 
$26.45 $30^08 
26.13 1 30.33 




27.39 i 29.33 


May 




June 

July 


29.51 1 28.67 


August 

September 

October 

November 

December 


29.66 1 31.50 
3a06 I 33.50 
29.89 1 33.83 
30.07 l«39.50 
30. .88 , 41.08 


Year 


27.83 


25. 25 


18.92 


25.89 


26.20 


30.57 


31.00 29.65 


22.89 


26.95 


28. 17 , 32. 19 




1917 


1918 


Month. 


No.l, 
lUi- 
Dois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 5, »,„ „ 
No. 4, New No-S- 


No.l, 
Illi- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


No. 5, 
New 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 


January 

February 


$40.00 
40.00 
42.00 
44.00 
46.00 
46.00 
48.00 
48.00 
50.00 
52.00 
53.00 
53.00 


$34.50 
37.00 
37.33 
40.33 
42.00 
43.00 
4.5.83 


$26.00 
26.17 
28.50 
32.17 
34.17 
33.50 
.■?S S3 


$35.24 $34.45 $41.25 
37.73 36.36 1 43.67 
39.09 38.37 1346.00 


$53.00 
53.00 
53.00 
53.00 
53.00 
53.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
.51.00 
51.00 
51.00 


$53.33 

53.50 
51.83 
49.83 
47.67 
45.83 
48.00 
50.67 
54.00 
.54.00 
.53. 33 
53.00 


$38.00 
37.00 
39.67 
39.33 
35.00 
33.33 
34.00 
39.00 
44.00 

«43. 50 
40.67 
39.33 


$49.69 
52.50 
57.69 
57.29 
49.36 
43.56 
45.91 
46.52 
47.40 
46.92 
46.08 
46,61 


$50.99 
52.81 
57.76 
56.50 
56.75 
55.22 
55. 51 
51.93 
54.25 
.50.39 
49.96 
50.43 


$.58.40 
39.50 






May 


53.46 38.70 
48. 28 39. 16 
49.26 ; 40.95 
53.66 1 48.10 
50.12 ! 46.81 
48.35 1 44.45 
47.23 46.64 
47.97 47.86 


56.83 
53.67 
.53.67 
63.17 
55.25 
54.83 
54.33 
58.50 








July 






48.83 1 34.17 




September 

October 

November 

December 


49.17 
4S..50 
49.50 
50.67 


33.50 
3.5.00 
37.50 
39.33 


.57.00 
,57.67 
5.5.67 
58.17 


Year 


46.83 


43.89 


32.82 


48.23 j 40.92 53.06 


52.00 


51.25 


38.57 


48.31 


53.90 


»57.75 



1 Prices are f. o. b. factory except those for brand No. 6, which are for deliveries Boston freight rate points. 
» Average of prices for two dates. 
> Price for one date only. 
* Average for 6 months. 
6 Average, 11 months. 



200 



COMMERCIAL, FEEDS. 



TiBLB 9. 



■Average prices per Ion of six brands of stock feeds, by months, January, 1913, 
to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 





1919 


1920 


Month. 


No.l, 
Illi- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

8t. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 4, 
Ohio. 


No. 5, 
New 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 


No.l, 
lUl- 
nois. 


No. 2, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 3, 

Ne- ; No. 4, 
bras- Ohio. 

ka. 


No. 5, 
Now 
Or- 
leans. 


No. 6, 
Bos- 
ton. 


January 

February 


$51.00 
51.00 
50.00 
48.00 
46.00 
45.00 
45.00 
4S.00 
48.00 
4S.00 
48.00 
50.00 


$53.00 $as.G7 
48.83 36.00 
.50.00 38.00 
51.50.1 39.00 
51.17 37.07 
50.67 , 37.00 
52.17 37.00 
.5.5.00 36.00 
52.67 3.5.33 
50. 50 j 35. 00 
51.67 37.33 
51.33 39.00 


$49.08 
47.25 
47.20 
51.55 
52.75 
.52.99 
54.94 
60.72 
57.48 
54.19' 
52.05 
51.96 


$50.97 $59.00 
52.03 , 53.00 
49.99 53.17 
49.25 , 55.83 
48. 9S 1 59. S3 
50.65 61. 50 


$50.00 
52.00 
52.00 
52.00 
53.33 
54.00 


$51.67 
52.00 
55. 33 
00.83 
64.33 
6.3.33 


«$40.00 '$53. 54 
! 56.20 

42.67 1 58.94 
•39.50 i 60.72 
'45.00 i 66.33 

45.00 |»68.00 


$.5.3.23 
51. 84 
.58.36 
51.97 
64.74 
64.50 


$63.33 
64.00 






May.'.'.:; 








July 


50.74 
51.49 
50.57 
50.66 
49.94 
49.74 


64.50 
69.00 
64.67 










j 




September 












60. S3 






1 




November 


60.07 
61.83 


















\ 












Year 


4S. 17 


51.54 37.00 


52. 16 


50.48 


60.32 


«52.22 


S57.92 942.43 ,660.29 


857.44 «67.75 



« Average of prices for two dates. 

^ Price for one date only. 

8 Average, January-Jane. 

9 Avera.tje for five months. 



Table 10. — Average prices o/six brands o/horse andmulejeeds,/. o. h. factory, by months^ 
January, 1913, to June, 19^0, inclusive. 





1913 


1914 


Month. 


No.l, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


No.l, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 




$20.92 
21.25 
21.83 
22.67 
23.67 
24.33 
21.67 
28.67 
27. .50 
26.33 
26.50 
25. .83 


828. .54 
29.55 
28.35 
28.05 
29.95 
28.38 
24.49 
28.35 
27.12 
26.77 
27.59 
28.88 


$26.47 
24.62 
25.23 
25.45 
2.5.30 
25.16 
26.51 
20.02 
27.40 
27.45 
27.81 
27.69 


$23.00 
23.00 
23.00 
23.33 
24.00 
25.00 
26.00 






$25.00 
24.67 
25.33 
26.00 
26.50 
26.33 
26.00 


$28.32 
28.32 
27. .55 
28.90 
28.35 
28.31 
27.05 


$28.24 
27.74 
27.39 
28.19 
28.36 
28.22 
27.72 
29.49 
29.21 
2,8.59 
27.01 
28.61 


$28.00 
27.33 
27.17 
27.33 
27.00 
27.50 
26.83 
29.17 
29.50 
28.17 
27.67 
26.33 


328.00 
27.50 
27.75 
27.75 
28.00 
2S.75 
28.00 
29.25 
30.50 
29.50 
2.S.50 
26.00 


$23.50 








23.00 


March 






23.00 








23-00 


Mav 






23.00 








23.00 


Julv 






23.17 




26.83 

28.17 
28.17 
27.83 
28.17 






27.83 
28.00 
26.3.3 
25.67 
24.67 


27.31 
29.27 
20.72 
2.5.66 
26.48 


24.67 


September 






26.33 






24.17 








24.00 








26.70 














Year 


24.35 


26.86 ] 26.22 


25. M 


. 




26.03 


27.59 


28.09 


27.67 


28.29 


23.96 












1915 


1916 


Month. 


No.l, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


No. 1, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 




$26.33 
27.33 
29.67 
27.83 
28.67 
27.83 
27. .83 
28.00 
27.00 
21. S3 
21.83 
25.67 

26.90 


$27. 14 
27.74 
28.00 
28.28 
28.47 
28.32 
2,8.22 
27.17 
27.46 
26.27 
25.97 
26.25 


$28.16 
2S.67 
28.51 
29.24 
28.56 
28.33 
27.86 
27.92 
26.28 
26.67 
25.65 
26.16 


$27.50 
29.17 
28.33 
28.67 
29.50 
29.17 
2,8.67 
29.17 
2.8.00 
27.00 
26.07 
27.07 


$27.75 
29.00 
29.25 
29.25 
29. .50 
2.8.75 
28.50 
29.00 
28.75 
26.75 
27.00 
27.00 


$26.60 
27.31 
28.04 
27.94 
27.76 
27.71 
27.16 
27.57 
26. .55 
24.96 
25. 12 
25.38 


$26. .50 
28.00 
27.50 
28. 67 
29.67 
29.00 
29.33 
20.50 
29.83 
31.00 
35. ,83 
33.67 


S28.05 
27.80 
29.15 
29.50 
30.56 
30.57 
30.05 
.30.99 
32.25 
32.18 
31.39 
35.48 


$28.35 
26.48 
29.27 
29.50 
30.21 
29.82 
28.55 
32.22 
32.01 
31.94 
36.73 
36.09 

30.16 


$28.50 
30.80 
30.00 
29. SS 
30.00 
29.33 
30.67 
31.50 
32.83 
33.50 
37.83 
37.17 

31.81 


$27.59 
28.00 
27.50 
27.50 
28.00 
27.50 
27.50 
27.75 
29.00 
29.75 
34.25 
35.00 


$26.86 


Febniarv 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 


27.09 
27.17 
27.85 
28.55 
29.12 
29.08 


August 

September 

October 

November 

December 


30.14 
30.82 
31.58 
.36.66 
34.42 


Year 


27.77 


27.57 


28.29 


28.37 


23.45 


29.88 


31.80 


29.10 


32.12 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



201 



Table 10,- 



-Average prices of six brands of horse and inule feeds, f.o. b. factory, by months, 
January, 191S, to Jime, 19J0, inclusive — Continued. 





No. 1, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


1917 


1918 


Month. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3,1 No. 4. 
Mem- 1 St. 
phis. ] Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


Nn. 1, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


January 

Fcbniary 


$34.67 
37.17 
40.17 
4.5.67 
51.17 
50.00 
54.67 
58.33 
57.33 
56.50 
57.50 
56.83 


$3.5.91 
36.70 
36.45 
38. 42 
41.79 
42.81 
62.62 
54.84 
56.30 
51.99 
.50.23 
53.81 


$37.07 
38.76 
38. 42 
42.26 
42.14 
41.54 
52.55 
56.66 
51.37 
51.52 
49.52 
54.02 


$37. DO 
39.50 
41.00 
47.67 
55.67 
54.00 
57.33 
58.67 
57.17 
55.67 
57.33 
59.33 


«:w.50 
37.00 
38.75 

"si'oo' 

61.00 
53.00 
64.00 


$36.80 
38.36 
39.27 
46.69 
51.08 
52.30 
51.82 
6.5.61 
49.89 
50.51 

'49. 45 
50.93 


$55.00 
57.00 
69.67 
58.33 
55.33 
62.83 
54.83 
58.00 
67.67 
61.00 
50.00 
52.33 


$54.59 
66.61 
66.16 
56.99 
54. (.4 
55.11 
52.92 
54.59 
&1.87 
64.27 
63.65 
63.57 


$.52.70 
61.13 
61.14 
61.. 34 
62.95 
56.61 
57.71 
58.44 
56.73 
54.08 
65.97 
56.25 


860.33 
62.17 
61.83 
58.33 
54.33 
52.33 
5fi.33 
58.00 
58.33 
56.83 
55.33 
66.00 


$50.60 
61.00 
51.50 
50.00 
47.60 
42.50 
44.25 
45.00 
45.00 
50.00 
46.50 
48.00 


>S51.9o 
154.21 


April 

May 


166.80 
S2.95 
50.01 


July 






51.61 


September 

October 

November 

December 


.52.72 
61.99 
51.60 
■50.77 


Year 


50.00 


41.33 


43.39 i 51.69 346.04 

1 1 


44.07 


55.18 


&4.74 


58.62 


67.43 


47.65 


52.78 





1919 


1920 


Month. 


No. 1, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 4, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 5, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


No. 1, 
Ne- 
bras- 
ka. 


No. 2, No. 3, 
Mem- Mem- 
phis, j phis. 


No. 4, No. 5, 

St. j St. 
Louis. Louis. 


No. 6, 
Ohio. 


January 

February 

March 


$53.00 
49.00 
51.17 
56.33 
57.00 
58.50 
61.00 
61.00 
65.60 
51.17 
53.33 
55.50 


$52.19 
52.18 
48.08 
51.71 
51.41 
62.98 
65.13 
67.27 
54.23 
56.10 
54.62 
52.01 


$56.07 
55.21 
52.44 
51.29 
54.03 
52.46 
54.96 
54.76 
52.01 
49.98 
61.78 


$56.00 
60.67 
63.17 
56.33 
58.17 
58.17 
60.17 
62.00 
55.17 
51.67 
.51.67 


$62.00 
49.25 
49.50 
53.00 
57.25 
59.50 
59.75 
63.00 
58.00 
54.25 
54.25 
56.00 


$50.76 
48.24 
45.41 
51.36 
52.18 
50.72 
52.85 
55.99 
51.07 


$67.33 
66.67 
59.00 
63.33 

■66.50 
68.00 


$51.48 
52.19 
54.25 


$53.46 
57.36 
58.30 
68.25 
76.00 
74.50 


$63.33 
53.67 
67.50 
62.83 
69.00 
68.83 


$58.25 
59.50 
61.00 
63.00 
05. 75 
272.00 


■S51.51 
54.69 
56.76 






May 


67.60 




■' 69. CO 


July 


















September 












49.42 
49.89 
51.11 








i 












1 






62.92 i 62.50 




























Year 


65.21 


52.68 


62.86 55.47 55.48 


50.22 <C1.81 




<64.65 


<60.86 


•63.25 


• 59.94 



■ Average of prices for two dates. 

* Price for one date only. 

• Average for 7 months only. 
1 -\verage, January-June. 

Table U.— Average prices per ton of four brands of hog feeds, f. o. b. factory, at central 
western points, by months, January, 1916, to June, 1920, inclusive. 





1916 


1917 


1918 


Month. 


No.l, 


No. 2, 


No.l, 


No. 2, 


No. 3, 


No. 4, 


No. 1, 


No. 2, 


No. 3, 


No. 4, 




Illi- 


St. 


Illi- 


St. 


Chi- 


Ne- 


Illi- 


St. 


Chi- 


Ne- 




nois. 


Louis. 


nois. 


Louis. 


cago. 


braska. 


nois. 


Louis. 


cago. 


braska. 


January 


$29.00 


$27.67 


$40.00 


$35.00 


$44.87 




$56.00 


$58.50 


$57.77 


$51.00 




29.33 


28.50 


41.00 


37.00 


45.50 


«i). 17 


57.83 


59.67 


61.37 


51.00 


March 


29. 50 


28.50 


41.67 


37.83 


46.23 


41.33 


62.67 


60.S:t 


67.03 


54.67 




29.50 


29.50 


46.67 


43.33 


61.07 


45.33 


61.67 


58.17 


64.33 


56.67 


Mav 


29. .50 


30.00 


50.00 


50.67 


63.57 


54.00 


59.67 


52.00 


69.83 


54.33 




29.50 


30.00 


50.50 


60.50 


51.50 


63.00 


57.92 


50.17 


60.17 


50.33 


July 


29.50 


30.00 


51.17 


50.50 


67.67 


63.00 


58.92 


55.00 


61.93 


54.67 




29.83 


30.00 


56.67 


53.00 


64.43 


08.33 


61.92 


69.33 


64.50 


58.33 




31.50 
/ 33. 17 


31.67 
32.00 


57.00 
55.00 


50.33 
50.00 


61.80 
61.70 


65.00 
05.00 


62. 58 
6.3.25 


63.8:j 
64.00 


69.57 
61. 10 


6L00 


October 


60.67 


November 


36.83 


36.50 


55.00 


53.00 


63. 53 


■65.00 


63.25 


61.33 


61.90 




December 


38.83 


35.00 


66.00 


66.33 


60.80 




63.25 


61.00 


66.00 






31.33 


30.69 


60.06 


47.29 


55.22 


' 55. 02 


60.74 


58.65 


62. 12 


2 55. 27 







1 Price for one date onl)'. 
3 Average for 10 mouths. 



202 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Table 11. — Average prices per ton of four brands of hog feeds, /. o. h. factory, at central 
western points, by months, January, 1916, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 





1919 


1920 


Month. 


No. 1, 
Illinois. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No. 3, 
Chicago. 


No. 4. 
Nebraska 


No. 1, 
Illinois. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No. 3, 
Chicago. 


No. 4. 
Nebraska. 




$64.58 
63.25 
63.25 
63.58 
66.25 
68.08 
70.08 
75.75 
74.75 
70.08 
69.42 
68.75 


$62.33 
59.50 
60.17 
63.67 
65.50 
65.33 
66.33 
72. .-is 
68.33 
65.17 
67.67 
68.83 


162.33 
58.50 
62.60 
66.17 
68.90 
67.00 
69.93 
76.50 
72.70 
67.33 
69.40 
72.08 


160.33 
58.33 
59. 33 
62.00 
62.00 
63.00 
65.00 
73.67 
68.67 
67.87 
67.67 
71.00 


$69.75 
69.78 
71.42 
71. 75 
77.75 
80.75 


$68.67 
68.33 
71.17 
75.17 
79.17 
79.33 


$69.92 
68.83 
69.50 
73.00 
76.67 
76.17 


$71.33 
70.00 
71.33 
74.00 

•75.00 
75.00 






April .. 


Miy 




July 


























































Year 


68.15 


65.43 


67.79 


64.89 


<73.53 


•73.64 


<72.35 









• Average of two prices only. 
< Average, January-June. 

Table 12. — Average prices per ton nf three brands of cat j meal, f. o. b. factory, at cenlrcl 
western points, by nwnths, January, 1916, to June, 1920, inclusive. 





1916 


1917 


1918 


Month. 


No.l, 
St. Louis 


No. 2, 
Illinois. 


No.l, 
St. Louis. 


No. 2, 
Illinois. 


No. 3, 
Illinois. 


No.l, 
St. Louis. 


No. 2, 
Illinois. 


No. 3, 
Illinois. 




$53.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
50.00 
53.00 
55.67 


$55.00 
55.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
51.00 
.56.00 
56.00 


$56.00 
57.00 
57.67 
64.00 
69.67 
70.00 
74.67 
80.67 
83.00 
82.33 
81.83 
80.83 


$56,00 
57.67 
62.67 
71.00 
71.00 
71.00 

173.50 
81.00 
81.00 
81.00 
81.00 
83.00 




$85.67 
87.50 
88.50 
87.67 
87.00 
83.83 
85.83 
90.00 
93.00 
92.33 
90.33 
90.00 


$83.00 
83.17 
85.60 
85.50 
85.50 
85.75 
85.75 
85.75 
85.75 
85.75 
85.75 
85.75 


$79.00 






March 


'$59.00 
60.33 
67. 33 
69.00 
69.00 
74.00 
75.00 
7.5.67 
77.00 
79.00 


83.67 




87.00 


May 








July 


87.00 








86.00 












84.00 






Year 


50.97 


52.50 


71.47 


72.49 


«70.53 


88.47 


85.24 


84.94 









1919 


1920 


Month. 


No.l, 
St. Louis. 


No. 2, 
Illinois. 


No. 3, 
Illinois. 


No.l, 
St. Louis. 


No. 2, 
Illinois. 


No. 3. 
Illinois. 




$91. 33 
91.33 
91.33 
80.00 
90.00 
90.00 
93.33 

100.00 
99.33 
96.00 
96.00 
99.67 


$87.08 
87.75 
88.42 
88.08 
89.08 
91.25 
92.08 
100.75 
100.75 
100.75 
100.08 
98.75 


$84.00 
86.00 
86.00 
86.00 
86.00 
86.00 
86.00 
90.00 
92.00 
92.00 
93.33 
94.67 


$100.00 
103.33 
104.67 
107.33 
109.33 
108.67 


$99.75 
99.75 
99.75 
99.75 
107.42 
107.75 


$96.00 








9&0O 




100.00 


May.::': : ::"';"' 








July 






















































94.01 


93.73 


88.50 


' 105. 55 


'102.36 


> 99. 39 







' Average ol prices for two dates. 
' Average, March-December. 
' Average, January- June. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



203 



-Average prices per ton of Jour brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 
1913, to June, 1920, incliisive.' 



No. 2, 

Mem- 
phis. 



No. 4, 
Chicago. 



No. 2, 


No. 3, 


Mem- 


St. 


phis. 


Louis. 


$29.86 


S34.00 


31.92 


32.00 


31.41 


32.40 


31.39 


33.00 


31. 2.5 


34.00 


31. 4fi 


34.00 


31.35 


31.60 


33.39 


35.00 


33.20 


37.60 


33.42 


35.40 


32.40 


34.60 


30.29 


33.00 


31.94 


33.88 



No. 4, 
Chicago. 



Januarj'... 
February. 

March 

April 

May 

Juiie 

July 

August, . . 
September 
October. . . 
November. 
December. 

Year 



$32.33 
32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.50 
33.92 
34.75 
35.75 
37. .iS 
37.42 
37.00 
37.00 



$31.17 
31.09 
31.27 
31.83 
30.96 



$29.00 
29.00 
29.00 
29.00 
29.00 
29.40 
31.00 
32.00 
34. 40 
36.00 
36.00 
34.00 



$26.00 
28.13 
26.13 
26.67 
27.00 
2S. 07 
29.67 
31.00 
32. ,33 
31.50 
31.33 
31.33 



$36.08 
35.07 
36.00 
36.50 
.36. 17 
36. « 
36.00 
39.17 
41.58 
39.17 
3S.58 
37.50 



S.30.00 
30.00 
30.50 
30.50 
30. .33 
31.33 
29.83 
33.17 
30. 17 
33.33 
32. S3 
31.07 



2 31.30 



31.48 



28.98 



37.44 



31.64 



No. 2, 


No. 3, 


Mem- 


St. 


phis. 


Louis. 


$34.09 


$35.60 


33.03 


39.40 


35.85 


37.00 


35. 05 


,37.60 


35.43 


37.60 


31.32 


36.40 


31.16 


35.40 


31.03 


35.40 


28.62 


33.00 


28.31 


32.00 


26.75 


32.00 


26.76 


33.40 


30.31 


35.40 



No. 4, 
Chicago. 



No. 2, 


No. 3, 


Mem- 


St. 


phis. 


Louis. 


$31.50 


$35.00 


29.85 


3.5.60 


30.20 


34.40 


28.40 


34.00 


30.27 


34.00 


31.89 


33.60 


29.91 


34.00 


30.83 


38.40 


34.13 


41.00 


33.70 


42.60 


40.31 


48.40 


44.78 


40.40 


33.09 


38.17 



January... 
February. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August. . . 
September 
October. . . 
November. 
December. 

Year 



January... 
February. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August . . . 
September 
October. . . 
November. 
December. 

Year 



$39.08 
42.00 
40.83 
41.50 
42.00 
41.17 
41.00 
41.33 
39.58 
37.50 
36.08 
36.42 

39.87 



No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 



$33.83 
36.50 
36.00 
35.67 
35.83 
34.33 
34.17 
34.00 
31.83 
29.83 
29.67 
31.17 

33.57 



No. 4, 
Chicago. 



$38. 25 
39.33 
38.50 
38.83 
39.00 
38.33 
39.00 
42.17 
44.83 
45.83 
51.58 
51.33 

42.25 



$52. 00 
54.17 
'57.00 
<06. 50 
72.33 
72.17 
75.00 
83.00 
81.83 
81.83 
82.83 
S3. 67 

71. S6 



$48. 60 
50.00 
51.60 
59.40 
68.40 
66.00 
70.00 
79.60 
79.40 
76.60 
73.00 
71.60 

60.23 



$45.67 
47.17 
49.67 
57.67 
65.67 
65.83 
09.33 
76.33 
75.17 
73.33 
75.00 
73.00 

64.49 



No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 



$70. 39 
71.36 
72.71 
77.80 
71.81 
68.15 
71.72 
72.30 
71.19 
66.86 
64.24 
64.97 

69.82 



No. 3, 



$32.33 
33.33 
31.50 
32.00 
32.17 
31.67 
33.00 
30.07 
3S.S3 
40.07 
45.07 
44.00 

35.99 



Chicago. 



$75. 40 
79.00 
80.40 
77.00 
74.40 
70.40 
71.40 
74.00 
74.60 
70.00 
07.00 
09.00 

73.60 



$73.00 
75.00 
77.67 
76.33 
72.33 
69.00 
70.00 
71.67 
71.00 
65.07 
62.67 
65.17 

70.79 



1 Prices are f.o.b. factory except those for brand No. I, which are for dehveries Boston freight-rate 
points. 

* Average, August-December. 
' One price only. 

* Average of two prices only. 



204 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



-Average prices per ton of four brands of scratch feed, by months, January, 
1913. to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 





1919 


1920 


Month. 


No. 1, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 4, 
Chicago. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No. 3, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 4, 
Chicago. 




871.50 
66.00 
6,5. 33 
71.17 
72.67 
75.00 
79. .S3 
.S4. 67 
•SO. 00 
74.33 
73. S3 
75.33 


$65.68 
60.20 
62.67 
67.13 
68.90 
71.46 
74.91 
76.55 
63.20 
63.58 
64.70 


$69.40 
64.60 
68.00 
72.40 
74.00 
78.00 
81.60 
&5.60 
77.40 
71.60 
73.60 
75.60 


$65.33 

68.83 
60. ,50 
65. 83 
69.00 
71.33 
76.33 
82.00 
7.1.00 
69.00 
70.50 
72.83 


$76. 17 
76.60 
77.83 
79.83 
80.17 
90.33 


$66.75 
68.22 
68.44 
71.50 
77.00 
78.67 


re. 00 

73.40 
74.00 
78.60 
85.60 
82.00 


$72.17 












May 








July 





































































74.14 


5 66. 72 


74.32 


09.71 


•81.14 


« 71. 70 


«7S.27 









* Average, 11 month.s. 

• Average, January-June. 

Table 14. — Average prices per ton of 5 brands of scratch feed, f. a. b. factory, at specified 
points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive. 



No. 1, 
New 
York 
State. 



No. 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 



No. 1, 
New 
York 

State. 



No. 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 



January 

February.. 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. 

October 

November. 
December. . 



Year. 



836. 67 
36.50 
36.50 
36.38 
35.17 
34.09 
33. 29 



$33.71 
'36.83 
35.48 
35.49 
35.75 
34.92 
34.12 
34.16 
31.97 
29.42 
29.73 
28.91 



$33.00 
37.00 
35.00 
35.00 
36.00 
33.60 
33.00 
33.50 
33.25 
31.00 
31.50 
31.50 



$34.83 
35.50 
3,5.83 
36,33 
38.00 
37.00 
37.00 
36.50 
35.17 
34.50 
31. 60 
31.17 



$31.77 
34.67 
35.90 
35.01 
35.09 
33.24 
32.23 
32.85 
29.95 
27.23 
28.42 
29.13 



$33.59 
35.24 
35.00 
34.00 
34.38 
34.21 
34.91 
37.43 
40.98 
42.25 
46.89 
46.20 



$32.54 
I 33. 59 
'31.39 
31.44 
' 32. 95 
32.08 
32.56 
36.23 
39.31 
40.04 
46.53 
44.96 



$32. 25 
33.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
31.00 
37.00 
40.50 
41.50 
47.00 
47.00 



$32.00 
33.67 
33.50 
32.00 
32.67 
33.00 
33.17 
36.33 
40.00 
41.50 
48.50 
46.17 



35.86 I 31.56 



33.60 



35.28 



31.63 



28.28 
29.85 
29.96 
30.15 
30.05 
30.12 
33.10 
36.79 
38.31 
40.73 
43.65 



32.92 



No. 1, 
New 
York 
State. 



January $46.25 

February ' 48. 30 

March i 49.88 

April 54.19 

May I 65.22 

June I 66.77 

July ' 66.43 

August 70.70 

September ' 78.75 

October 78.90 

November 76.56 

December 78. S3 

Year 65.80 



48.46 
49.57 
1 58. 91 
66.80 
67.15 
67.96 
79.54 
74.05 
67.36 
73.97 
79.81 



No. 3, 

St. 
Louis. 



847.00 
49.00 
52.75 



"76.00 
75.00 
75.50 
75.00 



47.83 
50.17 
69.17 
87.17 
65.83 
68. 83 
75.83 
74.67 
73. 17 
70.83 
70.83 



No. 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 



No.l, 
Now 
York 

State. 



$41.80 
42.41 
42.65 
45. 37 
49.27 
51.89 
65.99 
74.05 
68.37 
69.97 
62.89 
63.43 



$80.13 
80.05 
79.06 
79.36 
74.05 
71.61 
71. 50 
71.77 
73.60 
70.00 
67.42 
64.75 



63. 67 ^ 64. 32 64. 18 56. 83 



72.44 



$74.70 

76.45 

S80.40 



75.33 
70.43 
72.16 
70.70 
71.63 
64.56 
62.62 
64.47 



1 68. 53 



80.60 
76.26 
73.00 
68.00 
69.00 
69.00 
69.00 
71.00 
68. 00 
69.50 



72.27 



$71.83 
74.33 
80.00 
77.67 
71.67 
64. 75 
69. 75 
74,25 
71.58 
65.58 
64.08 
64.58 



70.84 



No. 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 



866. 44 
66.39 
67.21 
70.12 
6,9. 43 
67.91 
67.76 
68. 76 
66,62 
67.18 
64.96 
59.94 



07.14 



1 Average price for two dates. 

' Average for less than 12 months. 

' Price ior one date only. 



APPENDIX TABLES. 



205 



Table 14. — Average prices per ton of five brands of scratch feed, f. o. h. factory, at speci- 
fied points, by months, January, 1915, to June, 1920, inclusive — Continued. 









1919 






1920 


Month. 


No. 1, 

New 
York 
State. 


No. 2, 
Ohio. 


No. 3, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 4, 
Illinois. 


No, 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 


No, 1, 
New 
York 
State. 


No. 2, 
Ohio. 


No. 3, 

St. 
Louis. 


No. 4, 
Illinois. 


No. 5, 
Mem- 
phis. 




$65. 10 
62.55 
61.14 
63.81 
69.10 
71.60 
73.90 
78.91 
79.28 
72.40 
71.45 
71.63 


$65.67 
60.03 
60.56 
67.41 
70.24 
69.08 
75.51 
81.35 
72.41 
67.88 
68. 65 
70.51 


S71.00 
65.50 
67.00 
71.50 
73. 25 
75.50 
77.75 
85.00 
73.00 
68,25 
70.00 
74.25 


$67. 58 
64.92 
62.92 
66.58 
69.25 
73.08 
75. 75 
81.92 
74.58 
68.92 
69.58 
70.42 


$62. 81 
61.82 
57.69 
61.66 
61.47 
67.80 
68.99 
72.35 
71.46 
70.15 
60.78 
63.80 


$72. 88 
72.36 
75.94 
78.00 
81.00 
83.83 


$71. 34 
73.17 
73.59 
77.10 
86.67 
89.00 


$76. 50 
73.75 
72.25 
73.75 
77.50 

'83.00 


$72. 25 
69.92 
71.92 
76.58 
82.92 
84.25 
















May 








Julv 











1 










































Year . . 


72.74 


68.39 


72.67 


70.46 


66.16 


•77.34 


< 78. 48 


< 76. 12 


<76.31 









* Average, January-June. 
' Price for one date only. 

Table 15. — Average prices per ton of two brands of poultry mash, f. o. b. Boston and 
St. Louis, respectively, by months, January, 1913, to iune, 1920, inclusive. 





1913 


1914 


1915 


1916 


Month. 


No. 1, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 

St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2. 
St. Louis. 




831.50 

35.17 
37.00 
37.00 
37.00 
37.50 
37.50 
38.17 
39.00 
38.67 
38.50 
38.67 


$32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.00 
32.40 
34.00 
35.00 
37.40 
39.00 
39.00 
37.00 


$38.17 
38.00 
38.00 
39.00 
38,17 
38, Off 
38.00 
39.83 
40.50 
38.50 
38.50 
38.67 


$37.00 
35.00 
35.40 
36.00 
37.00 
37.00 
34.60 
38.00 
40.60 
38.10 
37.60 
36.00 


$39.00 
40.00 
39.00 
40.17 
40.17 
40. ,50 
40.00 
40.00 
39.00 
38.00 
37.00 
37.17 


$38.60 
42.40 
40.00 
37.60 
37.60 
37.00 
37.00 
38.00 
36.00 
35.00 
35.00 
36.40 


838.00 
38.83 
38.67 
38.50 
38.50 
37.50 
37.50 
38.83 
41.83 
42.67 
45.83 
45.83 












April. 




May 








Julv 




























Year 


37.14 


34.48 


38.61 


36.88 


39.17 


37.55 


40.21 










1917 


1918 


1919 


1920 


Month. 


No. 1, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 

St. Louis. 


No.l, 
Boston. 


No. 2, 
St. Louis. 




$46.33 
48.67 
' 50.00 
2 60,00 
61.67 
59.33 
59.67 
64.00 
61.50 
62.50 
65.17 
67.17 


$44. 40 
45.60 
49.00 
56.60 
63.40 
62.40 
64.40 
65.40 
64.60 
65.00 
65.00 
66.00 


$69.67 
71.00 
73.50 
7.3.00 
73.00 
73.00 
73.00 
73.00 
72.67 
71.67 
71.00 
71.00 


$65.60 
68.60 
69.60 
67.00 
65.60 
65.00 
63.40 
64.60 
72.00 
72.00 
72.00 
74.00 


$73.00 
70.00 
70.17 
71.00 
72.00 
72.33 
73.33 
76.33 
76.83 
74.50 
74,33 
75,33 


$74.60 
71.60 
72.00 
75.60 
74.00 
74.00 
75.60 
80.60 
76.60 
73.60 
75.00 
75.40 


$76. 17 
78.83 
79.67 
82.17 
85.67 
87.50 






77 OO 


March 




April 


82 00 


May 








July 




































Year 


58.83 


59.32 


72.13 


68.28 


73.26 


74.88 


'81.67 









1 Price for one date only. 

2 Average of prices for two dates. 

3 Average, January-June. 



206 



COMMERCIAL FEEDS. 



Table 16. — Average prices per ton oj three brands of poultry mash, j. o. b. Jactory, at 
northern Illinois points, by months, January, 1917, to June, 1920, inclusive. 



Monlli. 


1917 


191S 


1919 1 1920 


No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. -.). 


No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. 3. 


No. 1. 


No. 2. 


No. 8. 


No.1. 


No. 2. 

$74.00 
75. 33 
78. 17 
SI.67 
St4.67 
83.33 


No. 3. 




.S43.67 
46.33 
45.67 
54.00 
57.67 


$43. 17 
44.83 
47.33 
5.5.33 
61.00 
62.33 
65.33 
67. .S3 
63.50 
59.50 
63.33 
83. 67 


'm'.ob' 

51.00 
58.33 
60.00 
60.00 
68.33 
66.00 
67. a? 
66.00 
69.00 


S61.67 
63.00 
64.00 
62.00 
59. .^i 
58.58 
58.42 
82.42 
65.42 
66.2) 
66.92 
66.75 


165.50 

70. S3 

71. .W 
69.33 
67.17 
65.83 
66.33 
69.50 
72.67 
67.00 
68.00 
69.83 


$69.00 
72.00 
75.67 
77.00 
77.00 
72.00 
72.00 
75.00 
7.5.00 
73.67 
73.00 
73.00 


J88.08 
68.75 
70.75 
74. 75 
81.25 

82. 75 

83. OS 
86.75 
86. 08 
81.75 
79.75 
78. OS 


$68.83 
6J. .iO 
64.8:i 
67.60 
71. .50 
71.00 
74. M 
78.92 
75.67 
72.00 
72.17 
73.17 


$73.00 
74.33 
7.3. 1)0 
73.00 
7.3. OO 
73.00 
7.3.00 
79.67 
8.3.00 
80.00 
80.00 
SO. 67 


S79. 75 
7'J. :.", 
79. 7.-. 
79. 75 
88.42 
89.75 




Febniary 


82.67 
8:).00 




85.00 




8.8.00 




91 on 


Julv 


,i8. .S3 
61.50 
61.50 
61.. W 
on. 67 
60.00 












September 
































'82.86 


>79.3« 




Year 


55. S2 


58.10 


: 61. 70 


62.90 


68.62 


73.69 


78.48 


71.22 


76.31 


»85.28 



1 AveraKC of two pricc;^. 

2 Average March-December. 
' Average January-June. 



o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 816 957 74 



